Supreme Court of the Philippines

EN BANC
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-42-
METC), November 22, 2016
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE
ELIZA B. YU, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH47, PASAY
CITY, RESPONDENT.<br
[A.M. No. 12-1-09-METC]<br
 RE: LETTER DATED 21 JULY 2011 OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE BIBIANO G.
COLASITO AND THREE (3) OTHER JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY, FOR THE SUSPENSION OR DETAIL TO
ANOTHER STATION OF JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, BRANCH 47, SAME
COURT.<br
[A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836 (FORMERLY A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC)]<br
 RE: LETTER DATED MAY 2, 2011 OF HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING
JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY.<br
 [A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815 (FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 11-2401-MTJ)]<br
 LEILANI A. TEJERO-LOPEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU,
BRANCH 47, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PASAY CITY,
RESPONDENT.<br
[OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ]<br
 JOSEFINA G. LABID, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ELIZA B.
YU,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY,
RESPONDENT.<br
[OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ]<br
 AMOR V. ABAD, FROILAN ROBERT L. TOMAS, ROMER H. AVILES,
EMELINA J. SAN MIGUEL, NORMAN D.S. GARCIA, MAXIMA SAYO AND
DENNIS ECHEGOYEN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. HON. ELIZA B. YU,
PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47,
PASAY CITY, RESPONDENT.<br
[OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ]<br
 EXECUTIVE JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO, VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, JUDGE RESTITUTO V. MANGALINDAN, JR.
1
 JUDGE CATHERINE P. MANODON, MIGUEL C. INFANTE (CLERK OF
COURT IV, OCC-METC), RACQUEL C. DIANO (CLERK OF COURT III,
METC, BRANCH 45), EMMA ANNIE D. ARAFILES (ASSISTANT CLERK
OF COURT, OCC-METC), PEDRO C. DOCTOLERO, JR. (CLERK OF
COURT III, METC, BRANCH 44), LYDIA T. CASAS (CLERK OF COURT
III, METC, BRANCH 46), ELEANOR N. BAYOG (LEGAL RESEARCHER,
METC, BRANCH 45), LEILANIE A. TEJERO ( LEGAL RESEARCHER,
METC, BRANCH 46), ANA MARIA V. FRANCISCO (CASHIER I, OCC
METC), SOLEDAD J. BASSIG (CLERK III, OCC-METC), MARISSA
MASHHOOR RASTGOOY (RECORDS OFFICER, OCC-METC), MARIE
LUZ M. OBIDA (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OCC-METC), VIRGINIA D.
GALANG (RECORDS OFFICER I, OCC-METC), AUXENCIO JOSEPH
CLEMENTE (CLERK OF COURT III, METC, BRANCH 48), EVELYN P.
DEPALOBOS (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH 44), MA. CECILIA
GERTRUDES R. SALVADOR (LEGAL RESEARCHER, METC, BRANCH
48), JOSEPH B. PAMATMAT (CLERK III, OCC-METC), ZENAIDA N.
GERONIMO (COURT STENOGRAPHER, OCC-METC), BENJIE V. ORE
(PROCESS SERVER, OCC-METC), FORTUNATO E. DIEZMO (PROCESS
SERVER, OCC-METC), NOMER B. VILLANUEVA (UTILITY WORKER,
OCC-METC), ELSA D. GARNET (CLERK III, OCC METC), FATIMA V.
ROJAS (CLERK III, OCC-METC), EDUARDO E. EBREO (SHERIFF III,
METC, BRANCH 45), RONALYN T. ALMARVEZ (COURT
STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 45), MA. VICTORIA C. OCAMPO
(COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 45), ELIZABETH LIPURA
(CLERK III METC, BRANCH 45), MARY ANN J. CAYANAN (CLERK III,
METC, BRANCH 45), MANOLO MANUEL E. GARCIA (PROCESS SERVER,
METC, BRANCH 45), EDWINA A. JUROK (UTILITY WORKER, OCC-
METC), ARMINA B. ALMONTE (CLERK III, OCC-METC), ELIZABETH G.
VILLANUEVA (RECORDS OFFICER, METC, BRANCH 44), ERWIN RUSS
B. RAGASA (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 44), BIEN T. CAMBA (COURT
STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), MARLON M. SULIGAN
(COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44), CHANDA B.
TOLENTINO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 44),
FERDINAND R. MOLINA (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 44),
PETRONILO C. PRIMACIO, JR. (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 45),
EDWARD ERIC SANTOS (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 45),
EMILIO P. DOMINE (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 45), ARNOLD
P. OBIAL (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 44), RICARDO E.
LAMPITOC (SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 46), JEROME H. AVILES
(COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), ANA LEA M.
ESTACIO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 46), LANIE F.

2
 AGUINALDO (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 44), JASMINE L. LINDAIN
(CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 44), RONALDO S. QUIJANO (PROCESS
SERVER, METC, BRANCH 44), DOMINGO H. HOCOSOL (UTILITY
WORKER, METC, BRANCH 48), EDWIN P. UBANA (SHERIFF III, METC,
BRANCH 48), MARVIN O. BALICUATRO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II,
METC, BRANCH 48), MA. LUZ D. DIONISIO (COURT STENOGRAPHER II,
METC, BRANCH 48), MARIBEL A. MOLINA (COURT STENOGRAPHER II,
METC, BRANCH 48), CRISTINA E. LAMPITOC (COURT STENOGRAPHER
II, METC, BRANCH 46), MELANIE DC BEGASA (CLERK III, METC,
BRANCH 46), EVANGELINE M. CHING (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 46),
LAWRENCE D. PEREZ (PROCESS SERVER, METC, BRANCH 46),
EDMUNDO VERGARA (UTILITY WORKER, METC, BRANCH 46), AMOR
V. ABAD (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 47), ROMER H.
AVILES (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 47), FROILAN
ROBERT L. TOMAS (COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METC, BRANCH 47),
MAXIMA C. SAYO (PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 47), SEVILLA B. DEL
CASTILLO (COURT INTERPRETER, METC, BRANCH 48), AIDA
JOSEFINA IGNACIO (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 48), BENIGNO A.
MARZAN (CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 48), KARLA MAE R. PACUNAYEN
(CLERK III, METC, BRANCH 48), IGNACIO M. GONZALES (PROCESS
SERVER, METC, BRANCH 48), EMELINA J. SAN MIGUEL (RECORDS
OFFICER, OCC, DETAILED AT BRANCH 47), DENNIS M. ECHEGOYEN
(SHERIFF III, OCC-METC), NORMAN GARCIA (SHERIFF III, METC,
BRANCH 47), NOEL G. LABID (UTILITY WORKER I, BRANCH 47),
COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY,
RESPONDENT.<br
[OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ]<br
 JUDGE BIBIANO G. COLASITO, JUDGE BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, JUDGE
RESTITUTO V. MANGALINDAN, JR. AND CLERK OF COURT MIGUEL C.
INFANTE, COMPLAINANTS, VS. HON. ELIZA B. YU, PRESIDING JUDGE,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY,
RESPONDENT.<br
[A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821]<br
 JUDGE EMILY L. SAN GASPAR-GITO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 20, MANILA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ELIZA B. YU,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY,
RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N</br
</br

3
 </br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br
</br

PER CURIAM:

A judge embodies the law; she cannot be above it. She should not use it to advance her personal
convenience, or to oppress others. She should be obedient to the rules and directives enunciated by the
Supreme Court for the effective administration of justice; otherwise, she becomes an arrogant tyrant.
Being a magistrate of the law, she must comport herself in a manner consistent with the dignity of her
judicial office, and must not commit any act that erodes public confidence in the Judiciary.

In these consolidated administrative proceedings, we resolve the several charges of gross misconduct,
gross ignorance of the law, gross insubordination, oppression, and conduct unbecoming of a judge leveled
by various complainants, some of.them her fellow Judges, against respondent Judge Eliza B. Yu, the
Presiding Judge of Branch 47, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Pasay City.

On June 4, 2013, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 was consolidated with A.M. No. MTJ-12-1-09-MeTC. [1] Other
closely-related administrative complaints involving the respondent, specifically: A.M. No. MTJ-13-1863,
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815, OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ, OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ, OCA IPI No. 11-
2378-MTJ, and OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ, were similarly consolidated. [2]

Antecedents

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813

(Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Eliza B. Yu)

On January 27, 2011, the Court, through Chief Justice Renata C. Corona, issued Administrative Order
No. 19-2011[3] in response to the specific request of Secretary Alberto A. Lim of the Department of
Tourism (DOT) to establish night courts in Pasay City and Makati City. A.O. No. 19-2011 designated the
branches of the MeTC in Pasay City and Makati City as night courts to expeditiously hear and try cases
involving nighttime apprehensions, special cases under the Rule on Summary Procedure, and criminal
cases involving tourists, viz.:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 19-2011

4
 ESTABLISHING NIGHT COURTS IN THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS OF PASAY
CITY AND MAKATI CITY

WHEREAS, the Constitution mandates the speedy disposition of cases of all persons before judicial
bodies;

WHEREAS, "the Executive Judges of the Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
of the cities and municipalities comprising Metro Manila x x x may assign all judges to hold night court
sessions daily from Monday to Friday and on official holidays and special days."

WHEREAS, in line with the constitutional mandate on the speedy disposition of cases and in the exercise
of its power of administrative supervision over all courts, the Supreme Court has ordered (a) the
establishment of night courts in the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Manila "to try and decide all special
cases enumerated in the Rule on Summary Procedure," and (b) the opening of two branches in the
Metropolitan Trial Courts of Quezon City as night courts to hear "cases involving nighttime
apprehensions" and special cases enumerated in the Rule on Summary Procedure;

WHEREAS, the Court held that the operational guidelines for the assignment of judges and the holding
of night court sessions in Manila shall also be applicable to the night courts established in Quezon City;

WHEREAS, the Court requires the expeditious disposition of criminal cases involving tourists;

WHEREAS, the Honorable Secretary Alberto A. Lim of the Department of Tourism has requested the
designation of night courts also in Pasay City and Makati City, in addition to those already existing in
Manila and Quezon City;

WHEREFORE, it is hereby directed that:

1. Night courts similar to those designated in the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Manila City and Quezon
City be established in the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Pasay City and Makati City;

2. The operational guidelines for the assignment of judges and the holding of night court sessions in the
Metropolitan Trial Courts of Manila be applicable to the night courts in the Metropolitan Trial Courts of
Pasay City and Makati City, respectively, except operating hours, which shall be from four-thirty in the
afternoon (4:30 p.m.) until eleven o'clock in the evening (11:00 p.m.);

3. The night courts of Pasay City and Makati City be authorized to try and decide cases involving
nighttime apprehensions and all special cases enumerated in the Rule on Summary Procedure;

4. The provisions of Administrative Circular No. 58-2002, dated 14 November 2002, requiring an
expeditious disposition of criminal cases involving tourists be complied with; and

5. The Executive Judges of the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Pasay City and Makati City (a) to inform the
Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Prosecutor's Office within their respective jurisdictions of the
schedule of the branches of the metropolitan trial courts assigned to hold night sessions; and (b) make
representations with the PNP and the local government units to ensure that appropriate security measures
are adopted to protect the judges and their staff during night sessions.
Immediate compliance with this order is enjoined.

27 January 2011.
To comply with A.O. No. 19-2011, then Pasay City MeTC Executive Judge Bibiano G. Colasito issued a
Memorandum dated February 9, 2011[4] prescribing the schedules for night court service of all Pasay City

5
MeTC Judges and employees effective February 14, 2011. Under the Memorandum, MeTC Branch 47,
presided by respondent Judge Yu, was assigned night court duties every Friday. But Judge Yu did not
desire to comply, and so inscribed the following marginal note on the February 9, 2011 Memorandum of
Judge Colasito, to wit:   
February 11, 2011

Pls. I dissent with the night court assignment. I have pending legal question before the Office of Court
Administrator.[5]
The pending legal question Judge Yu adverted to had been posed in her letter dated February 2, 2011 to
the Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, [6] as follows:
Sir:

Our Court is in receipt of Administrative Order No. 19-2011 (Establishing Night Courts in the
Metropolitan Trial Courts of Pasay City and Makati City) today.

Among others, it is provided that: "3. The night Courts of Pasay City and Makati City be authorized to try
and decide cases involving night time apprehensions and all special cases enumerated in the Rule on
Summary Procedure."

With due respect, the police officers cannot apprehend, detain and bring the arrested persons
charged with cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure at night without being liable for
Arbitrary Detention. The arrested persons need not post bail under the Rule on Summary
Procedure. Thus, there is no legal basis for the police officers to detain them prior to the hearing of
their cases at night by the court. Moreover, the public prosecutors cannot conduct inquest on the
night arrests of the suspected criminals because the penalty involved in cases covered by the Rule
on Summary Procedure is not more than six (6) months. Inquest can be conducted only where the
penalty is four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day and above. The night inquest without the
release of the arrested suspects is questionable. It can make the public prosecutors criminally and
administratively liable.

It is tedious for the public prosecutor and the public attorney to attend the night court from 4:30
p.m. to 11:00 p.m. after attending an exhaustive hearing in the morning then attend the hearing on
the following day, without additional pay.

Unlike in Manila Metropolitan Trial Courts where the cases tried by night courts are mostly
violation of ordinances, in Pasay Metropolitan Trial Courts, most of the cases filed are Theft, B.P.
Blg. 6 and P.D. No. 1602 that entail full blown trial because the accused refuses to enter into a plea
bargaining. In this sense, the establishment of night courts in Pasay City cannot unclog a court's
criminal docket. (Bold emphases supplied)

Please enlighten us on this concern.

Thank you.
It appears that the Station Investigation and Detective Management Section (SIDMS) of the Pasay City
Police Station received a copy of Judge Yu's letter to Court Administrator Marquez. Wary of the potential
criminal liability of apprehending officers adverted to in the letter, Police Chief Inspector Raymund A.
Liguden of the SIDMS sought clarification from the Office of the Pasay City Prosecutor. [7] In response,
the Office of the Pasay City Prosecutor explained through Prosecutor Dolores P. Rillera that the
apprehending officers could become liable for arbitrary detention only when they failed to refer the
arrested persons for inquest proceedings within the periods specified under Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code.[8]

6
Apprised of the explanation from the Office of the Pasay City Prosecutor, Judge Yu requested Prosecutor
Rillera to refer the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and request a legal opinion thereon, [9] even
as she requested Court Administrator Marquez to have her letter to Prosecutor Rillera docketed as an
administrative matter.[10]

Judge Yu communicated her reservations about the night court by letter directly to DOT Secretary Lim,
[11]
 pointing out that the DOT's request for the establishment of the night courts was supported neither by
statistical data nor by any study. After rendering a lengthy discourse on the flaws of establishing night
courts, she ended her letter with a request for additional compensation and security in case she would
undertake night court duties. The pertinent portions of her letter ran as follows:
Dear Sir:

This Court learned that you requested for the designation of night courts in Pasay City that resulted to the
issuance of Administrative Order No. 19-2011 (Establishing Night Courts in the Metropolitan Trial
Courts of Pasay City and Makati City) dated January 27, 2011.

With due respect, there is insufficient basis for your request. There was no statistical data present
or there was no study conducted by your department recommending the necessity of establishing
night courts in Pasay City. For the record, this Court is yet to hear a case involving any
tourist. Moreover, the tourists should be advised not to roam around the city at night so as not to be
victims of various crimes. Usually, the perception of the tourists who are going around the city at
night is negative, for they are likely to be engaging in unlawful nocturnal activities. They are at
their own risk at night.

There was no prior consultation with the police officers, public attorneys, public prosecutors,
judges and their staff before your department requested for the creation of night courts in Pasay
City.

There are many concerns which your department did not consider.

First, some of the rights of the accused who were charged with cases covered by the Summary
Procedure are impaired by the operation of night courts. x x x

xxxx

Second, night courts in Manila City and Quezon City are criticized for being ineffective and non-
functional. In Manila City, when I was a public prosecutor, I questioned as to the legality of the detention
of the accused being arraigned at night for violation of ordinances. When I was not given any legal
justification, I requested to be relieved from night court. My experience showed that night court is a waste
of time for all. The cases tried at night court can be tried during day time without burdening the three (3)
pillars of our criminal justice system. xxx. The cases tried are violation of city ordinances, mostly on
illegal vending in the night courts. I heard that these cases were filed for money making scheme by the
police officers. From the information gathered, only those accused who did not give them money were
arrested, detained and brought to the night courts.

Third, there is a grave violation of the right of government employees against long and extended
period of work with no additional pay at night. This is a form of exploitation of workers whose rights
are enshrined under the Constitution. It bears pointing out that additional compensation for night time
work is founded on public policy.

7
x x x x.

Fourth, it is very burdensome to attend the court at night.

x x x x.

Fifth, it is risky to work at night because of lack of security.

x x x x.
Lastly, the establishment of night courts in Pasay City will not unclog a court's criminal docket. The
situation in Manila City and Quezon City are not similar with Pasay City. x x x. In Manila Metropolitan
Trial Courts, majority of the accused pay the fine for the violation of ordinances not involving any tourist
crime during the night court hearing. Also, a study must be conducted by your department, if necessary,
about the effectiveness of night courts in Manila City and Quezon City, and if these night courts are
attaining the purposes they were created. If not, there is no reason for the establishment of a night court or
tourism court here in Pasay City. Another thing, there is uneven assignment of judges alone to the night
court. x x x.

I hope you find merit with this letter. May your department reconsider your request for the establishment
of night courts in Pasay City. With due respect, it will be appreciated if your department will give
additional compensation and provide police security to the judges, public prosecutors, public
attorneys and the entire court staff, if it insist of [sic] establishing night courts here without
conducting any study.

x x x x. (Bold emphases supplied)

On May 5, 2011, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Assistant Court Administrator
(ACA) Thelma C. Bahia, responded to the concerns raised by the Judge Yu in the following manner: [12]
This refers to your letter dated February 2, 2011 apprising us of certain concerns relative to the
establishment of night courts in Pasay City.

xxxx

The first concern has been ably explained in the attached letter dated February 25, 2011 of Prosecutor
Dolores P. Rillera, Chief, Inquest Division, Office of the City Prosecutor, Pasay City, addressed to Police
Chief Inspector Raymond A. Liguden, Chief SIDMS, Pasay City, who, having been furnished a copy of
your letter dated February 2, 2011, subsequently sought the guidance of Prosecutor Rillera on the matter.

With respect to the second point you raised, prosecutors and public attorneys of Pasay City had long been
assigned their respective schedules to handle inquest proceedings until 10 p.m. prior to the designation of
night courts in Pasay City. Attending night courts would not be as tedious as you surmise. Besides,
prosecutors and public attorneys already receive allowances for staying beyond office hours.

As to the third issue, the main consideration for the designation of night courts is to address the matter of
nighttime apprehension which include offenses enumerated in the Rule of Summary Procedure. Priority is
also given to those criminal cases where the offended party or the complainant is a tourist or transient in
the country as already explained in Administrative Circular No. 58-2002 dated November 14, 2002.

Be reminded that judges, prosecutors and public attorneys are public officers who are duty bound to serve
with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and whose main concern in the
performance of their duties is public welfare and interest.

8
Please be guided accordingly.[13]
Ostensibly not satisfied, Judge Yu replied,[14] pertinently stating:
xxxx

With due respect, your letter did not address the issues raised in my letter dated February 11, 2011 to
Hon. Alberto A. Lim, Secretary of Tourism who did not reply said letter to date [sic]. Attached is my
letter dated March 22, 2011 address[ed] to Hon. Jose Midas P. Marquez together with the attachments.

As per information from this Courts' Officer-in-Charge Emelina J. San Miguel who heard from other staff
of the Office of the Clerk of Court, there is (sic) no criminal case filed at night since the start of the night
courts here in Pasay until now showing the need to review, if not abolish the administrative order creating
it.
Back at the Pasay City MeTC, the continued refusal by Judge Yu to render night court service prompted
Executive Judge Colasito to assign additional night court duties to the other MeTC Judges and their
personnel.[15]

In view of Judge Yu's refusal to follow A.O. No. 19-2011, the OCA submitted a memorandum to the
Court,[16] recommending that her insubordination, gross misconduct and violation of The New Code of
Judicial Conduct be docketed as an administrative complaint against her. In due course, the Court
required Judge Yu to comment.[17]

In her comment, Judge Yu denied the charges, and asserted that she did not commit insubordination;
[18]
 that her protest against night courts was a mere expression of her opinion; that she would render night
duty upon receiving a resolution on her protest from the Court; that the OCAD should have submitted a
complete study and report about the effectiveness of night courts in the National Capital Judicial Region,
particularly in Pasay City;[19] and that her protest was covered by her constitutional right to freedom of
speech[20] and other legal principles.[21]

Judge Yu also asserted that based on her experience, holding night courts unduly burdened the Judges and
their court personnel, as well as other court employees; [22] that A.O. No. 19-2011 merely reiterated
Administrative Order No. 72 dated June 30, 1988 that had been based on the 1983 Rule on Summary
Procedure in Special Cases but the latter issuance had already been superseded by the 1991 Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure;[23] that A.O. No. 19-2011 did not make any reference to the 1991 Rules of
Summary Procedure which was a "huge legal blunder;"[24] that the drafters of A.O. No. 19-2011 merely
reiterated Administrative Circular No. 58-2002 dated November 14, 2002, and overlooked R.A. No. 4908
(An Act Requiring Judges Of Courts To Speedily Try Criminal Cases Wherein The Offended Party Is A
Person About To Depart From The Philippines With No Definite Date Of Return);[25] that night court duty
violated the 8-hour work period;[26] that the Court should exercise judicial restraint; [27] the A.O. No. 19-
2011 was invalid for non-compliance with the requirements of issuing a valid administrative order; [28] that
A.O. No. 19-2011 did not provide any penalty in case of its non-compliance; [29] and that A.O. No. 19-
2011 was an invalid order addressed solely to the Executive Judges of the MeTC of Makati City and
Pasay City.[30]

A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836

(Re: Letter dated May 2, 2011 of Hon. Eliza B. Yu, Branch 47, MeTC, Pasay City); and

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815

(Leilani A. Tejero-Lopez v. Judge Eliza B. Yu)

These administrative matters refer to the appointments of Ms. Leilani A. Tejero-Lopez as the Branch

9
Clerk of Court of MeTC Branch 47, and Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman as Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) Branch 108, in Pasay City.

Respondent Judge Yu challenged the appointments.

I. Appointment of Ms. Tejero-Lopez as Clerk of Court III, MeTC Branch 47, Pasay City

On July 9, 2010, Judge Yu requested to fill the position of Clerk of Court III in her sala. [31] Upon approval
of her request[32] and consequent posting of the notice of vacancy, [33] three applicants vied for the position,
namely: Ms. Ellen D.L.S. Serrano, Ms. Leilani A. Tejero-Lopez and Ms. Eloisa A. Bernardo. [34] From the
outset, Judge Yu favored Ms. Bernardo for the vacancy. [35]

After evaluating the applicants' qualifications, the Selection and Promotion Board for the Lower Courts
under the OCA (OCA-SPBLC) recommended the appointment of Ms. Tejero-Lopez, then a Legal
Researcher assigned at MeTC Branch 46, in its Board Resolution No. 12B-2011(A) dated April 4, 2011.
[36]
 The OCA-SPBLC had found Ms. Bernardo to have lacked the required training. [37]

On April 12, 2011, Chief Justice Corona, along with Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Associate
Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, approved Ms. Tejero-Lopez's appointment.

In the meantime, by letter dated March 31, 2011, Judge Yu requested the temporary designation of Ms.
Bernardo as the Clerk of Court,[38] and furnished a copy of the letter to Ms. Tejero-Lopez. [39] In the letter,
Judge Yu expressed her protest against the appointment of "another applicant from Metropolitan Trial
Court Branch 46, Pasay City, as well as other applicants who cannot be appointed because they lacked the
requirement of the personal endorsement by the judge." She further declared that it would be best to either
hire a new lawyer or to call for another batch of applicants in the event that Ms. Bernardo would not be
appointed.

The OCA-SPBLC, through Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches, denied Judge Yu's request for
Ms. Bernardo's temporary designation pursuant to Section 2(b), Rule III of the Omnibus Rules on
Appointments and Other Personnel Actions in view of the availability of a qualified applicant. [40]

On April 14, 2011, Ms. Tejero-Lopez learned from Ms. Emmie San Miguel, the then OIC of Branch 47,
that Judge Yu had wanted her to execute a waiver or withdrawal of her application.

Wishing to settle the issue of the appointment amicably, Ms. Tejero-Lopez paid Judge Yu a visit in her
chambers. The meeting between them was hostile. In describing the meeting, Ms. Tejero-Lopez pointed
out that Judge Yu had shouted and exclaimed at her: "Nanggugulo ka[!] Ikaw ang nanggugulo[!]
katatawag ko lang sa Supreme Court, Sabi ng Supreme Court, ikaw ang nanggugulo[!]." Ms. Tejero-
Lopez recalled that Judge Yu then demanded her withdrawal with a threat to revoke her appointment later
on. Faced with the prospect of eventually losing her job, Ms. Tejero-Lopez decided to withdraw her
application.[41]

On April 26, 2011, Judge Yu asked for the reconsideration with the OCA-SPBLC by submitting a copy of
the withdrawal of the application signed by Ms. Tejero-Lopez. [42]

However, by her letter dated May 10, 2011, Ms. Tejero-Lopez retracted her withdrawal, and signified her
intention to pursue her application.[43]

After an investigation that established that Ms. Tejero-Lopez did not voluntarily withdraw her
application, the OCA-SPBLC continued processing her appointment, [44] and she was eventually appointed

10
Clerk of Court III effective May 31, 2011.[45]

Upon receiving her appointment on June 7, 2011, Ms. Tejero-Lopez went to Judge Yu's chambers to take
her oath, but the latter refused her request to administer her oath. According to Ms. Tejero-Lopez, Judge
Yu questioned the integrity of the selection process, and told her directly that the Court had appointed her
in retaliation to her refusal to render night court service. Judge Yu threatened Ms. Tejero-Lopez with
criminal cases of grave coercion and trespassing, and contempt of court if she persisted on taking her oath
of office. Judge Yu further vowed to assail the appointment before the Court and the Civil Service
Commission (CSC).[46]

On the same day, Judge Yu wrote to Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of Office, OCA-Office of
Administrative Services (OCA-OAS),[47] to protest the appointment, to wit:
Madam:

Thank you for your telegram today. Please be informed that Leilani Lopez has withdrawn her application
as Clerk of Court III in this court [a] long time ago. She failed to comply (sic) all the requirements for
the consideration of her application for such position because, among others, she has no personal
endorsement from this court despite her last ditch attempt to get it on March 7, 2011. This court did
not sign an important document for her relative to the position thus her application cannot be considered
by the Selection and Promotion Board for the Lower Courts at all. Moreover, this court has continuing
protest against her appointment in this court to date. And this was reiterated to Leilani Lopez few
moments ago.

Please be guided accordingly.

x x x x (Bold emphasis supplied)

A week later, Judge Yu sent another letter stating that she had apprised Ms. Tejero-Lopez of her possible
indictment for unlawful appointment, grave coercion and unjust vexation, among others. [48] She thereby
also expressed her refusal to honor the "void ab initio" appointment of Ms. Tejero-Lopez, which she
characterized as "a big joke." For the fullest appreciation of the contents, the letter is quoted herein below:
Madam:

Please be informed that today Leilani Lopez, the applicant for Clerk of Court III who has withdrawn her
application long time ago, sought to see me because of her appointment, a legally infirm one. I
accommodated her for a brief talk for the last time, hoping to not see her again and never to bother me
anymore.

It was explained to her that she will face possible indictment of, among others, unlawful
appointment, grave coercion and unjust vexation, all punishable under the Revised Penal Code, if
she forcibly insist to take a seat in this court despite of numerous oral and written opposition by the
court to her selection and appointment. Likewise, she can be thrown to jail for contempt of court, if
such callousness and discourteousness continue to exist in this court. Moreover, she was told that if
thievery extends to public office, the elements of Theft under our penal code were established prima
facie, as the concept of apoderamiento or unlawful taking predominates in this situation, an affront of the
Rule of Law, showing that the Rule of Jungle where might is right triumphs as can be gleaned in a paper,
a null and void appointment paper held by her. Her appointment is highly questionable. Leilani Lopez
received the proverbial forbidden apple, obviously grown from a toxic tree. Our court advised her
for the last time not to eat it, or she will suffer the grave consequences, without any taint of threats
to her. The ways of a scholar seem not to have a place in this prestigious institution, for her
appointment is an example of brute force, they say it is a rape of the honor of this bench, others say
it is a spit of insult. However, this court will not press formal charges against the poor Leilani Lopez, a

11
sorry victim of a subtle power play. Article 24 of the New Civil Code says indirectly that the court must
be vigilant for the protection of morally dependent, ignorant, indigent, mentally weak, tenderness of age
or other handicap of a person. Your office must be reminded that I took my oath seriously before SC
Justice Antonio B. Nachura, and I swore to him that I will uphold the Constitution, and I will remain
faithful to my oath even after his retirement in the judiciary. Consequently, this court will not honor the
void ab initio appointment of Leilani Lopez, a big joke and so this court is laughing at her and all
others who are like her, not to put her and others down, only to treat this delicate matter lightly in jest
strange things, sometimes contrary to law or contrary to the spirit of the law, do happen in judiciary. The
Selection and Promotion Board for the Lower Court is funny, and it made me laugh. I rather laugh
than be angry, than feel helpless, than look powerless in this awful and mean situation. Firmness of
decision anchored on the principles of righteousness and justice is one of the characteristic of this
unassuming court. I am happy to feel that God is with me, and He not Satan is cheering with me in this
lonely fight as to what is right and just.

Thank you. (Bold emphasis supplied)

On June 17, 2011, Judge Yu submitted her formal protest[49] against Ms. Tejero-Lopez' appointment, as
follows:
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona
Supreme Court
P. Faura St., Manila City

FORMAL PROTEST TO THE APPOINTMENT OF LEILANI LOPEZ AS BRANCH CLERK OF

COURT OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY

Sir:

All the laws provide the inherent relief of protest by the incumbent judge to an appointment of any
staff in his or her court. The appointed applicant Leilani Lopez is not qualified and not fit to work
as the branch clerk of court in my sala.

Leilani Lopez lacked personal indorsement. The applicant knew this, and so she said to me on June 14,
2011 that she does not know why she was appointed. She attempted to get a personal indorsement from
me on March 7, 2011 that I rejected. She must submit her neuro-psychiatric test results to me and to the
Board because it is definitely abnormal, some kind of an obsession, to insist in clinging on to a position of
a branch clerk of court after numerous oral and written opposition by a judge she will be working with.
This alone is a sign that she is unfit for the job. Her obsession is dark, it is destructive because she places
her own personal interest over public interest[.] [w]ith her presence in my court, the public will definitely
suffer, and so the judiciary. I as a judge will suffer. I am demoralized with this rotten system of
appointing an unfit applicant. I am unhappy right now of her appointment, and it will affect my
enthusiasm and productivity in court. I expressed my disgust unabashedly before the Chief of OAS
and the lawyer from the Legal Department, and so I felt discourteous as I was a victim of
discourtesy here. For showing lack of delicadeza, Leilani Lopez was rejected openly[,] verbally[,] and in
writing, made to her by me and my court staff [sic] for numerous times, thus she is callous and
discourteous.

Leilani Lopez deceived me by giving me a formal letter of her withdrawal of application, only to find out
yesterday that she filed her waiver of withdrawal which disclosure should have been made to me by her in
good faith. This qualifies her for the crime of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.
In doing this, she does not have my trust and confidence, a biting reality since the time she applied for the
position until her numerous rejections. Dishonesty encompasses all that deviates sense of honesty. Our
workplace provides that "Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes

12
the moral decay which virtually destroys honor, virtue, and integrity. It is a malevolent act that has no
place in the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral
righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary." If Leilani Lopez has a gull [sic] to
deceive me at this point in time, giving me her formal withdrawal letter and filing her waiver of her
withdrawal letter without my knowledge, and this was not disclosed to me by her despite her
opportunities to do so, this meant that she has a dishonorable and vicious character, undeserving to be in
my court. She did this deceitful conduct to me and she showed unpredictable actuations to me and to the
Board while she is still an applicant, she will most likely do it as a branch clerk of court in my sala. And
so I will always be wary with her presence in my court, and it is a tremendous mental stress or for me as a
judge.

With due respect, there was a misconstruction of the laws on selection and appointment of court
personnel by the Board, it presupposes that all the applicants submitted for consideration by the Board
must have good and harmonious working relationship with a judge he or she will work with and so the
judge must have assented or agreed to the proposed application of all applicants, expressly or impliedly.
If an appointed applicant is not the liking of the judge, there will be disharmony in the court. The working
relationship with [sic] be based on mistrust and distrust. It will not accomplish anything good for the
judiciary as a whole. Each other's working life as a judge and as a branch clerk of court will be miserable.
This is not the spirit of the letter of all the laws pertaining to selection and appointment of Supreme Court
employee aspiring for confidential position such as branch clerk of court. In fact, I believe that the branch
clerk of court must be co-terminus with a judge's assignment in a particular court. I do not engage in a
power play, it happens that the personal indorsement of a branch clerk of court is my prerogative
as a judge and I want to exercise that prerogative to accomplish excellently in my judicial and non-
judicial tasks. There were substantive and procedural flaws with her selection and appointment as
branch clerk of court. The laws surrounding the irregular appointment of Leilani Lopez, including
the fact of not resolving my grievance prior to her appointment, were misapplied in her case. We do
not uphold the laws that cause quarrel and dissension in court. Assuming Leilani Lopez took her
oath of an irregular appointment which she is aware of, my recourse as a judge is to ask for her
detail to another court, preferable to the Selection and Promotion Board. This will not contribute for
the success of my court in the interest of public service. Our workplace deprived me of a court staff who I
can completely trust, and help me accomplish great things in the judiciary. The Board deprived me
already of my prerogative to choose my branch clerk of court, and so I want this deprivation to be put on
record. If I lose this legal battle in this workplace, I am a winner because I brought to your attention, and
all Supreme Court justices, ultimately the public, such unrighteous and unjust manner of selecting and
appointing a branch clerk of court. You may have been misled by the Board in signing her
appointment. You have many things to do as Chief Justice, sometimes, you may not have read the
minutes of Board and merely followed its recommendation. As a judge, I have my rights and
privileges, and far more considered than the rights and privileges of an applicant for a branch clerk
of court, a virtual stranger to me at the time of her application, and now her character is dubious to
me. Imagine, this kind of irregular appointment invites suits and casts disrepute amongst us, I
doubt if this is what our Supreme Court envisions or our Constitution dreams for the Supreme
Court. I re-plead all my letters and the attachments dated June 15 and 16, 2011 pertaining to the
appointment of Leilani Lopez that were furnished to the Office of the Court Administrator and to you to
form part of this formal protest. Attached herewith is a formal complaint against Leilani Lopez.
(Emphasis supplied)

I am requesting for a Solomonic resolution of this protest.

Thank you.
Judge Yu submitted a supplemental formal protest dated June 28, 2011 describing the appointment to be
"tainted with irregularity in gross violation of the substantive and procedural laws" and "void ab initio"

13
for failure to obtain the favorable recommendation from her as the presiding judge. [50] She argued that the
OCA-SPBLC had failed to assess the competence and qualifications of Ms. Tejero-Lopez; that Ms.
Tejero-Lopez did not meet the minimum requirements for the position; and that the position of Branch
Clerk of Court was confidential.

In view of Judge Yu's refusal to honor her appointment, Ms. Tejero-Lopez requested Executive Judge
Colasito through her letter of June 11, 2011 for her detail to another office. [51]

Ms. Tejero-Lopez ultimately executed a sinumpaang salaysay charging Judge Yu with refusal to obey
court order.[52]

On September 12, 2011, the Court dismissed Judge Yu's protest against the appointment of Ms. Tejero-
Lopez.[53]

Judge Yu was undaunted, however, and she filed a motion for reconsideration, [54] attaching the motion to
her supplemental explanation.[55]

II. Appointment of Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman, Clerk III, RTC Branch 108, Pasay City

In June 2010, Judge Yu initiated a complaint, docketed as A.M. No. P-12-3033 (formerly A.M. No. 10-8-
97-MeTC), entitled Memoranda of Judge Eliza B. Yu Issued to Legal Researcher Mariejoy P. Lagman
and to Court Stenographer Soledad J. Bassig, All of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47, Pasay City,
against Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman, Legal Researcher II of Branch 47, for grave misconduct, falsification,
usurpation of judicial functions and dishonesty.

Citing "pressure within the working environment" and in order to have "a self-assured and peaceful
mind," Ms. Lagman requested her transfer to another branch of the MeTC pending the hearing of the
complaint against her.[56] Eventually, the Court appointed her as Clerk III of Branch 108 of the RTC in
Pasay City effective October 5, 2010, a demotion from her position as Legal Researcher in Branch 47.

Apparently, Ms. Lagman's appointment did not sit well with Judge Yu, who assailed it before the OCA-
SPBLC as a "fast appointment" for being made despite her pending administrative complaint. [57]

On May 2, 2011, the OCA received a letter from Judge Yu requesting for updates on the alleged delay in
the appointment of a clerk of court in her branch, and her protest against the appointment of Ms. Lagman,
among others.[58] She thereby threatened to file formal charges against the members of the OCA-SPBLC,
thus:
Sir:

I am requesting your office to furnish me the information on the following:

(1) xxx;

(2) xxx;

(3) xxx;

(4) The report of an investigation of the very delayed appointment of our Branch Clerk of Court, the
position is vacant for over three (3) years now;

(5) x x x; and

14
(6) The report of an investigation on the appointment of Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman in RTC Branch 108,
Pasay City despite the pending administrative cases involving grave offenses against her.
I am requesting Atty. Wilma D. Geronga, Chief of Legal Department, Docket and Clearance Division of
your office, to docket my letter dated April 28, 2011 together with the attachments addressed to the
Selection and Promotion Board for the Lower Courts that said office received on the same day touching
on the foregoing matters for the conduct of full investigation because I will take the appropriate action. I
will not hesitate to press formal charges against your office if there was a transgression of the laws
and if still necessary. (sic) Stamping out corruption of any form is one of my advocacies in life.
(Emphasis supplied)

Thank you.
The OCA filed a memorandum denouncing the misconduct and insubordination of Judge Yu relative to
the appointments of Ms. Tejero Lopez and Ms. Lagman.[59]

On January 30, 2012, the Court required Judge Yu to show cause and explain why she should not be
disciplined for her actions.[60]

In her explanation,[61] Judge Yu denied the allegations, and maintained that she had only exercised her
freedom of speech; that it was her "statutory right as a judge" to question the "irregular appointment" of a
branch clerk of court whom she believed to be lacking in the basic requirements for the position; [62] that it
was "strange to have a jurisprudence on alleged misconduct and insubordination of a judge" based on
mere letters; that her letters were privileged communications and could not be used against her, pursuant
to her constitutional right against self-incrimination; [63] that she had no evil intention in writing her letters
because she was thereby only expressing her honest-to-goodness opinion without fear of censorship. [64]

A.M. No. 12-109-METC

(Re: Letter dated 21 July 2011 of Executive Judge Bibiano G. Colasito and Three (3) Other Judges of
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City, For the Suspension or Detail To Another Station of Judge
Eliza B. Yu, Branch 47, Same Court)

A.M. No. 11-2399-MTJ

(Amor V. Abad, et al., v. Hon. Eliza B. Yu); and

A.M. No. 11-2378-MTJ

(Executive Judge Bibiano G. Colasito, et al. v. Hon. Eliza B. Yu)

A.M. No. 11-2399-MTJ refers to the complaint [65] filed by the court staff of MeTC Branch 47 charging
Judge Yu with grave misconduct, oppression, gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

In OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ, four MeTC Judges and 70 MeTC court personnel assigned in Pasay City
filed two affidavit-complaints dated May 12, 2011[66] and July 14, 2011,[67] accusing Judge Yu with: (1)
gross insubordination; (2) refusal to perform official duty; (3) gross ignorance of the law or procedure; (4)
serious and grave misconduct constituting violations of Canon 3, Rules 3.0 and 3.08 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct in relation to Canon 6 of The New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary;
Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; and Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct; (5) violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars; (6) violation of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (7) violation of the Lawyer's Oath and her oath of
office as judge; (8) oppressive conduct; and (9) violation of Article 231 [68] of the Revised Penal Code.

A.M. No. 12-109-METC relates to the Letter dated July 21, 2011 [69] sent by her fellow Pasay City MeTC

15
Judges, namely: Executive Judge Bibiano G. Colasito (Branch 45), Vice-Executive Judge Bonifacio S.
Pascua (Branch 44), Judge Restituto V. Mangalindan (Branch 46), and Judge Catherine P. Manodon
(Branch 48), requesting Judge Yu's immediate suspension or detail to another station pending
investigation of all the administrative cases filed against her.

The common issue in the three complaints concerned the conduct of Judge Yu in relation to her staff,
fellow Judges and other officers of the Supreme Court, her disobedience of the Court's issuances, and her
manner of disposing cases.

I. Oppressive conduct towards her staff

The complaining staffmembers of MeTC Branch 47 claimed that Judge Yu had constantly threatened
them with administrative complaints;[70] that she had readily attributed malice upon their actions, and had
sown intrigue against their honor;[71] that she had impulsively declared in open court during the hearing of
the case docketed as Civil Case No. M-PSY-10-12032-CV entitled Fabra v. Global Classe that they had
engaged in irregular conduct;[72] that she had berated Mr. Ferdinand Santos even in front of all the other
staff members;[73] and that she had harassed the personnel who had brought administrative complaints
against her (i.e. by refusing to sign the applications for leave of Noel Labid and Robert Froilan Thomas,
and by requiring them to submit unwarranted documents). [74]

The complaining staffmembers recalled that at one time they had overheard the respondent uttering:
Mananalo tayo sa kaso sila ang mali. Tayo ang matuwid hindi sila. x x x Ferdie, ready na nga pala yung
permit to carry ko. Magdadala aka ng baril, Cal 45. [75]
by which they had felt threatened; and that seeing the door to the respondent's chamber left wide open,
they had sought refuge in the offices of her fellow Judges. [76]

Judge Yu also trained her sights on the Pasay City MeTC personnel when she requested ACA Bahia to
audit the Office of the Clerk of Court for allegedly unremitted fees paid for the ex parte presentations of
evidence in replevin cases.[77] This incident, according to the complaining staffmembers, caused
demoralization among the Pasay City court personnel.

II. Disrespectful attitude towards co-judges, SC officers and offices

The complainant Judges charged Judge Yu with being disrespectful towards other Judges when she wrote
Vice Executive Judge Caridad G. Cuerdo of the RTC Branch 113, and accused Executive Judge Pedro B.
Corrales of the RTC Branch 118, Judge Maria Rosario B. Ragasa of the RTC Branch 108, MeTC
Executive Judge Colasito, and MeTC ViceExecutive Judge Pascua with violations of Canon 1, Section 3
and Canon 2, Section 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, and violation of Section 1, paragraph (c) of
Presidential Decree No. 1829 (obstruction of justice).[78]

Allegedly, Judge Yu used herOIC Ferdinand A. Santos in sending the letter to Clerk of Court IV Miguel
C. Infante.[79] The letter insinuated that Judge Gina Bibat-Palamos and Judge Josephine Vito-Cruz had
failed to act despite their knowledge on the purported selling of decisions by court employees, pertinently
stating:[80]
Lastly, this court experienced few attempts to withdraw cash bond without motions by including in the
orders granting release of cash bonds, including those confiscated, and the public prosecutor did not
object for failure to read previous order of confiscation, presumably such order is detached from the court
records, as there are instances the pleadings, motions and oppositions are removed from the records, then
attached again after investigation of the court as to where is the particular paper. This is something old
because for example, Acting Judge Josephine VitoCruz was able to sign commitment orders when records
show that the accused was arrested and detained already, and this fact was on paper immediately

16
preceding the order that she can read it, if it was not detached and attached again after her order; she was
able to sign orders on two arraignments of same accused in different dates in several occasions, and this
court noted that in calendaring, there were attempts to mislead by writing it is for arraignment instead of
pre-trial that to relay on it, the court will issue two arraignment orders; and lost or detached exhibits that
she decided on such point only to know later on the receiving copy of the plaintiff that she decided
adversely in the case of Equitable vs. Chua Ty Kuen, Civil Case No. 2-03 for Replevin, as it seems the
modus operandi is to win or dismiss cases by argument that the evidence are photocopies, as also in this
court's experience in case of People vs. Basa, CC-00-1988 for Reckless Imprudence decided on June 28,
1010, the material exhibits are photocopies, some are not attached in the court records despite existence in
the minutes and transcript of records, all these examples are presumably, are warnings of existence of
wicked harm in this court. Thus, your office should scrutinize release of cash bonds. Of course, there
were complaints of alleged selling of decisions by court staff in cahoots with each other during Judge
Gina Palamos and Judge Josephine Vito Cruz who were aware of this money-making devious scheme.

This court hopes that your office will take note of this letter which the contents here were supplied by our
judge that deserves to be acted upon swiftly by the Office of the Court Administrator to eradicate, if not
lessen corruption in the judiciary.
Moreover, Judge Yu issued a resolution in Civil Case No. B-03-08 entitled Rodelio Hilario v. Shirley
Pabilona,[81] whereby she declared that she was not the co-equal of Judge Vito-Cruz of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cardona, Rizal, as follows:
With due respect, the principle of "co-equality" between the two courts provided in paragraph 5 of the
motion for reconsideration, to wit, "In essence, the incumbent Presiding Judge cannot over-rule the
regular procedure adopted by her predecessor judge, because they are of the same level," finds no
application in this case because a predecessor's judge orders can be interfered and encroached upon by the
incumbent judge when they are contrary to the principle of equity, existing law and
jurisprudence. Moreover, the predecessor judge, Honorable Josephine A. Vito Cruz is a Municipal
Trial Court Judge of Cardona, Rizal while undersigned is a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge of
Pasay City, their salary grades are not at par with each other so it is quite incorrect with
defendant's counsel declaration that the predecessor judge and the incumbent judge are of the
same level.[82] (Bold emphasis supplied)
Aside from her failure to accord the respect due her fellow Judges, Judge Yu was overheard uttering
disparaging remarks against Court officers. In one instance, after the OCA SPBLC had recommended Ms.
Tejero Lopez to the position of Branch Clerk of Court, Judge Yu made the following statement against
Court Administrator Marquez, to wit:
Yang si Midas Marquez na iyan napaka-highly incompetent, kung lalaki lang ako sinuntok ko na iyan,
basta gwapo at maganda, mga walang utak. Oh, tandaan nyo yan ha! Iyang OCAD kalaban natin hindi
kakampi.[83]
Judge Yu also said at another occasion:
Iyang auditor na Cielo na iyan, traidor, sana noong pinakain ko nilagyan ko na lang ng lason.
referring to SC Auditor Cielo Calonia who had earlier denied having informed her about court personnel
profiting from the collection of ex parte fees.[84]

The complainants claimed that Judge Yu's disrespectful attitude towards her fellow Judges and the Court's
officials constituted a violation of Section 3 of Canon 1, and Section 3 of Canon 2 of The New Code of
Judicial Conduct.

III. Gross ignorance of laws, rules and regulations

The complaining staffmembers averred that Judge Yu: (a) had assigned the duty of correcting draft
decisions, orders and resolutions to on the-job trainees (OJTs) in violation of Memorandum Circular No.
5-2003 entitled Re: Prohibiting the Accommodation of Students to Undergo On-TheJob

17
Training/Practicum in the Different Offices of the Court; (b) had designated an Officer-in-Charge (OIC)
for Branch 47, who did not possess the minimum qualifications for the position and without approval
from the Court; and (c) had ordered her staff to advetiise and offer for sale the books she had authored in
violation of SC Administrative Circular No. 09-99.[85]

The complainants in A.M. No. 11-2399-MTJ and OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ alleged that Judge Yu: (a)
had authorized the prosecution of Criminal Case No. M-PSY-09-08592-CR entitled People v. Ramil
Fuentes, et al.[86] without the presence and prior endorsement of the public prosecutor; (b) had allowed the
arraignment of the accused in Criminal Case No. MPSY-11-13957-CR entitled People v. Balwinder
Singh,[87] and the change of plea by the accused in Criminal Case No. M-PSY-11-13159-CR
entitled People v. Lito Manduriao[88] in the absence of the public prosecutor;[89] (c) had ordered the
presentation of ex parte evidence in Civil Case No. M-PSY-11-12626-CV before the OIC who was not a
member of the Bar in violation of Section 9, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court; [90] and (d) had required the
plaintiffs in replevin cases to submit receipts of payment of legal fees under Sections 8(e) and 21(e) of
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, as well as an explanation why they were making payments to the
OIC and stenographers during the ex parte presentation of evidence.[91]

Judge Yu was being held to account also for her failure to protect and uphold the dignity of her court by
not castigating the opposing counsels who had physically attacked each other during court proceedings.
She was heard to have remarked: Hindi ko sila kinontempt kasi wala naman akong mabibenefit.[92]

In her comment,[93] Judge Yu denied the accusations, and attributed malice and fraud to all the
complainants, branding their accusation as the manifestation of a "tyranny in numbers." [94] She dismissed
the charges against her as false, frivolous, meritless, and intended to harass her [95] and destroy her
reputation.[96] She declared that she did not know most of the court employees who had executed and
signed the complaint; and warned that they had opened themselves to criminal, civil and administrative
liabilities by signing the complaint.[97]

Anent the charges of gross ignorance of the law, Judge Yu contended that the students who were OJTs
had sought permission to report to her court in compliance with their school requirements, but they were
told not to carry on judicial tasks;[98] that the memorandum dated November 2, 2010 was not followed,
and was not officially given because of the prohibition against OJTs in the courts; [99] that Ms. Angelica
Rosali had acted only as an observer to comply with her school requirements, as an accommodation of the
request of her (Judge Yu's) parents;[100] that her designation of Mr. Santos as an OIC did not violate CSC
Memorandum No. 6-2005 because the position of OIC required trust and confidence; [101] that she did not
order her staffmembers to sell and advertise her books; [102] that she had cited the counsels disrupting the
court proceedings with contempt of court and had imposed the corresponding fines on them; [103] that there
was recent jurisprudence allowing a trial to proceed even in the absence of the public prosecutor provided
no prejudice was caused to the State;[104] that there was a need to verify the case records with respect to
the allegations that she had allowed the prosecution of criminal cases in the absence of the public
prosecutor because of the complainants' propensity to falsify documents; that the complainants were not
the proper parties to raise any issues related to the criminal proceedings; [105] that there were provisions of
the Rules of Court allowing the waiver of certain rights according to the agreement of the parties; [106] and
that the provision on reception of ex parte evidence is merely directory because of the word "may." [107]

As to the charge of oppression, Judge Yu countered that she had always been kind and generous towards
her staffinembers;[108] that she did not humiliate Mr. Santos;[109] that she did not terrorize her
staffmembers, although she had displayed her anger and displeasure whenever they committed
irregularities;[110] that she had not sown intrigues against her staffmembers, but had constantly reminded
them to refrain from committing any graft and corrupt practices; [111] that in the hearing of the case
of Fabra v. Global Classe, she had only replied to the manifestation made by Atty. Agustin Javellana

18
regarding the false and irresponsible acts of her court staffmembers; [112] that the alleged threat in relation
to her licensed firearm was untrue; and that the entering of the incident in the police blotter was libelous.
[113]

Judge Yu denied uttering statements against Court Administrator Marquez, and SC Auditor Calonia.
[114]
 She said that as far as the resolution alluding to Judge Vito Cruz was concerned, the court minutes
were falsified, as to which Ms. Soledad Bassig and the lawyers were co-conspirators; that she harbored no
ill will towards Judge Vito-Cruz; that such statement was a rejoinder to the unfair comments of the
defendants' lawyer;[115] that the statement "spoke of the truth" and was not, therefore, defamatory; [116] that
in not furnishing to her the memorandum regarding the resolution prior to filing the administrative
complaint, Executive Judge Colasito had deprived her of the opportunity to amend the same "just to suit
their whims, caprices and fancies;" and that the filing of the administrative complaint against her had been
done treacherously.[117]

OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ

(Judge Bibiano G. Colasito, et al., all of the Metropolitan Trial Court [MeTC] Pasay City v. Judge
Eliza B. Yu, MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City)

This administrative matter concerned the letter dated January 12, 2012 [118] signed by MeTC Executive
Judge Colasito, Vice-Executive Judge Bonifacio S. Pascua, Judge Restituto V. Mangalindan, Jr., and
Clerk of Court Miguel C. Infante charging Judge Yu with oppression in issuing the order dated December
1, 2011[119] in Criminal Case No. M-PSY-09-08592-CR entitled People v. Ramil Fuentes, et al., viz.:
The stenographer in this case Romer Aviles is directed to make and attach the transcript of stenographic
notes (TSN) dated September 7, 2011 within ten (10) days from receipt of this order copy furnished to
Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Assistant Court Administrator Thelma C. Bahia by the
process server Maxima Sayo with corresponding return and proof of service and to surrender the tape
containing the recorded proceedings on said date to the Officer-in-Charge Ferdinand Santos. Failure to
comply with this will compel this Court to issue show cause for contempt of court against the responsible
stenographer. Moreover, he and Executive Judge Bibiano Colasito, et al. who are signatories in the
false and malicious complaint under OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ alleging gross ignorance of the law
of this Court by surreptitiously taking a TSN, minutes and order dated March 22, 2011 of this case
on the absence of public prosecutor, when a trial can proceed without public prosecutor is allowed
under our existing jurisprudence is directed to explain within seventy-two (72) hours from the
receipt of this order why they should not be cited in contempt of court under Rule 71, Section 3(a)
and (d) of the Revised Rules of Court. Process server Maxima Sayo is directed to personally serve
copies of this order to Executive Judge Bibiano Colasito et al., with corresponding return.

Tentatively set the contempt proceedings February 15, 2012 at 8:30a.m.

SO ORDERED. (Bold emphasis supplied)

To avert a crisis and disharmony in the Pasay City MeTCs, the Court suspended Judge Yu from office
effective February 1, 2012.[120]

In her comment, Judge Yu m'aintains that she validly issued the subject order by virtue of the inherent
contempt powers of the court,[121] and in accordance with the rulings in People v. Godoy and Salcedo v.
Hernandez;[122] that the complainants should have availed of the appropriate relief in questioning the order
instead of filing the administrative complaint; and that the OCA could not rule on the propriety of issuing
the subject order because doing so was beyond the OCA's power and prerogative. [123]

OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ

(Josefina G. Labid v. Judge Eliza B. Yu)

19
This administrative matter stemmed from the complaint filed by Mrs. Josefina G. Labid charging Judge
Yu with oppression, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct unbecoming of a judge in connection with
the fate of her son, Noel, who had served as Utility Worker I at the MeTC Branch 47. [124]

Mrs. Labid narrated that in January 2011, Noel had been diagnosed with "Cancer of the floor of the
mouth, Stage IV-A;" that Noel had then applied for leave of absence covering the period of his treatment
from January 2011 until March 2011, which Judge Yu had approved without any incident; [125] that being
the sole breadwinner of the family, Noel had reported to work on April 4, 2011 against his doctor's
advice; that she (Mrs. Labid) had started noticing that Noel would appear exhausted and weak upon
arriving home from work; that Noel had confided to her that Judge Yu had directed him to go to different
offices in the Supreme Court to deliver copies of her orders and letters, as well as her books or manuals,
despite his medical condition;[126] that shortly after arriving home from work on June 7, 2011, Noel had
become delirious and weak due to profuse bleeding in the mouth; that on the following day, she had gone
to Branch 47 to inform the staff that Noel would not be reporting to work; that she had then learned that
Noel had moved a heavy table inside the office upon the instructions of Judge Yu; [127] that Noel had
reported back to work on June 10, 2011, but his bleeding had recurred and he had been constantly brought
to the hospital since then;[128] that on June 28, 2011, she had submitted Noel's applications for leave at
Judge Yu's office covering the periods of June 8 and 9, 2011, [129] and of June 13-30, 2011;[130] that she had
returned on July 5, 2011 to the sala of Judge Yu, and had then learned that the latter had not signed Noel's
application; that she was then told by Court Stenographer Roman Aviles to see and talk with Judge Yu;
that she had met with Judge Yu in her chambers, and during their conversation, Judge Yu had allegedly
remarked:
Mabait naman ako sa anak mo. Pag-inuutusan ko siya binibigyan ko pa siya ng pera, siguro aabot ng
P15,000.00 sa isang taon ang maibibigay ko sa kanya. Pero bakil pumirma siya sa petition na nagsasabi
na bobo ako at corrupt? x x x halala pa na dinagdag lang sita ni Emma Sayo kasi di nakatype ang
pangalan nila. Kung ganoon ang tingin nita sa akin, bakit di na lang sila magresign?[131]
that Judge Yu had replied that Noel would be in a better position to address her (Mrs. Labid) concern; that
she had begged Judge Yu to sign her son's application for leave, explaining that she had to submit the
document before the deadline in order to claim monetary aid from the Supreme Court Health and Welfare
Fund; that instead of signing, Judge Yu had left her inside the chambers, and had given instructions to Mr.
Santos; that upon her return, Judge Yu had advised that Noel should first submit a medical clearance
before she would sign the application for leave; and that she had then appealed to Judge Yu by leaving a
handwritten letter requesting the approval on Noel's application. [132]

Mrs. Labid recalled that she had returned the following day to again plead with Judge Yu, but Mr. Santos
had prevented her from seeing Judge Yu and had instead handed her a memorandum for her son that
reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Labid,

You have been consistently absent in this court due to sickness. As per record, your absences with leave
due to treatment of cancer in the court are as follows: for the whole months of February 2011 and March
2011, you also incur several days absences for April and May 2011 while for the months of June, 2011
you incur 15 days absent (June 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 2011). Being a
government (public servant) employee, you are not suppose to be always absent from your work and if
the absences are due to sickness, you must submit original copy of medical certificate. Your continued
absence in your work affects the performance of this Court that affects also the performance of your co-
employees. As per Civil Service Commission ruling; as a general rule, an employee whose continued
absence from his work due to his lingering illness, the Department Head, if he sees to it that the
performance of his office is much affected because of the continued absence of such the employee, the
Department Head in his own discretion, may ask his superior for a replacement of such employee - thus

20
the affected employee may file for permanent disability or terminal leave.

In view of the above matters, you are required to submit the following documents: Certificate of Fitn ss to
Work (if not contagious), Duration of Recovery (from illness) and Certificate of discharge from the
hospital (June 17 and 24, 2011) prior to the approval of your leave of absences for the months of June,
2011.

(sgd)
Ferdinand A. Santos
Officer-in-charge[133]
Mrs. Labid believed that Judge Yu had dictated the contents of the memorandum to Mr. Santos after their
previous conversation; and that Judge Yu's unjustified refusal to sign Noel's application for leave had
been motivated by malice and ill-will, arising from the administrative complaint against her that Noel had
signed and joined. She mentioned that her son had later on died on August 15, 2011. [134]

In her comment,[135] Judge Yu denied the imputations of Mrs. Labid. She justified her denial of Noel's
application for leave by citing in her undated and unsigned Memorandum [136] the ruling in A.M. No. 2004-
41-SC (January 13, 2005) entitled Re: Memorandum Report of Atty. Thelma C. Bahia against Ms.
Dorothy Salgado. She maintained that Mrs. Labid had not submitted the documents she had required.
[137]
 She denied having received any handwritten letter from Mrs. Labid; and having known of Noel's
condition. She insisted that Noel had volunteered to lift the table as part of his job as a utility worker. [138]

A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821

(Hon. Emily L. San Gaspar v. Hon. Eliza B. Yu)

This administrative matter emanated from the Letter-Complaint of Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito of
MeTC Branch 20,[139] whereby the latter imputed to Judge Yu conduct unbecoming of a judge for
constantly sending alarming messages with sexual undertones via Facebook and electronic mail.

Judge San Gaspar-Gito and Judge Yu became acquainted in May 2009 when the latter was the public
prosecutor pinch hitting at the MeTC Branch 20 in Manila where the former presided as Judge. They
became Facebook friends upon Judge Yu's initiative, and Judge San Gaspar-Gito accepted her request as
a matter of courtesy.[140] Judge San Gaspar-Gito claimed that Judge Yu normally sent long messages that
she had ignored most of the time.[141] On August 30, 2009, Judge San Gaspar-Gito received in her Yahoo
account a peculiar message from Judge Yu, as follows:
NATIONAL HEROES DAY'S THANK YOU Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:02 PM

From: "ELIZA YU"

To: emily_san_gaspar@yahoo.com
      1 File (82KB)
 

 (see image p. 37)

 MEAL STUB

Hon, thank you for your MEAL STUB ... when and where can I claim it?
take care & love you.[142]

21
Judge Yu sent another message to Judge San Gaspar-Gito's Facebook account with the subject Meal Stub,
to wit:
__________________________________ August 31, 2009 __________________________________

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                       9:20am

MEAL STUB

dear ems, i sent your meal stub at your yahoo account to honor you this national heroes day. it's good you
gave me an idea of your preferred sexual position, there's no need to study that 69, you'll get it from
me spontaneously ... that's easy, pulled down your underwear, and eat what's in between your thighs ...
but you have to pay me $10 first ... He He He! take care and see you later... [143] (Bold emphasis supplied)
The message contained an attachment similar to the image of a man and a woman juxtaposed in a 69
position appearing in the previous Yahoo message.[144] Judge San Gaspar-Gito ignored both
communications, but Judge Yu continued sending more puzzling messages to the complainant's Face
book account, viz.:
__________________________________ September 1, 2009 __________________________________

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                     11:21pm

YOUR MEAL STUB ...

giving me FEVER honey ... YOU ARE KEEPING ME WIDE AWAKE. I need a bath no not a bath ... I
need a sex therapist He He He

BLOWN KISS?? I haven't claim yet my meal stub now you are sending me a blown kiss ... why don't you
send me your cell no. asap so we can practice your fave 69?

__________________________________ September 2, 2009 __________________________________

Eliza B. Yu
PRO LOVE (No Jokening Here)                                                                    7:43am

YES TO LOVE NO TO LUST!!

Why naman you are heating me up out of your hundreds FB friends?
HHHmmm ... don't fall in love online kasi you
are not supposed to kiss, kiss a pc monitor ... He He He
No dialogues from you lately, are we in a silent "titillating" movie?
Wala ba tayong rehearsals dito? FAMAS award na rin ba tayo?
Buti na lang magaan loob ko sa iyo,
SOUL MATES tayo. Isasauli ko na ang meal stub mo ... wala naman
nakalagay when and
where to claim, wala ring cell phone no. mo (siguro trip mo lang mag send ng lewd pic kasi photographer
ka in your past life, lewd photographer ... He He He).
Dami kong tanong sa iyo, pero impersonal kasi ang
computer kaya wala na akong masyadong tanong online ... maliban sa ano na ba civil status mo, MAINIT
KA MASYADO?? Yung photo profile mo, dina "cute little devil" ...
ikaw ay "red hot and horny"[145] na ... tandaan mo
honey NO TO CYBERSEX! NO TO PHONE SEX! PAY ME $10 FIRST BEFORE 69 (prone to HIV
AIDS na sexual position ang 69 kaya sa swimming pool yan ginagawa). Take care and see you later.

22
__________________________________ September 4, 2009 __________________________________

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                       9:24pm

2 VISITS

hey ems, i really miss you, so i plan to visit you at your chamber this sept. 1 and 21. are you available at
these dates?? pls. reply. take care and see you later.

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                        9:47pm

hey, wish me good luck for my report tom at justice rene corona's class, it's a "MIXED NUTS" feelings to
have a future chief justice as an audience (he's a "terrorist" ... he he he ... but he did not give me a HIGH
FEVER unlike you! ha ha ha!) pls. tell me what time you will be at your chamber this sept. 7 and 21 so i
can visit you? PREPARE THE $10.x's and o's.[146]
Confounded, Judge San Gaspar-Gito finally confronted Judge Yu on the messages. Instead of giving a
direct reply, Judge Yu continued sending puzzling messages. Their exchanges ran as follows:
__________________________________ September 6, 2009 __________________________________

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                      10:41am

CLUELESS INQUIRER

hey what's that meal stub and 69, got no idea about it? Does my fb send something to everyone? Ami in a
game? huh, m wondering!

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                     10:44am

A TRIBUTE TO ELVIS PRESLEY

Wise Men say

only fools rush in
but I cant help
falling in love with you

Shall I stay
would it be a sin
if I can't help falling in love with you...

Like a river flows, surely to the sea

Darlin so it goes, somethings are meant to be..
Take my hand, take my whole life too
for I can't help fallin in love with you...

Like a river flows, surely to the sea

Darlin so it goes, somethings are meant to be..

Take my hand take my whole life too for I can't help

falling in love with you

for I cant help falling in love with .... You.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

23
__________________________________ September 12, 2009 __________________________________

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                        7:07am

MOVIES

hey since you are a movie buff, watch "BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN", you will enjoy the sex between 2
cowboys in a tent. The 1st sex was made out of lust while the 2nd sex was made out of love! In the
movie, the "measure of love was not jealousy but sacrifice."

__________________________________ September 14, 2009 __________________________________

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                        8:43am

l'Hymne A l'Amour

Hey, after watching "Brokeback Mountain", I recommend you to watch "When Night Is Falling", there
was a sizzling (red hot) sex between a university literature professor at a religious college and a free-
spirited circus performer inside a tent, too just like "Brokeback Mountain". Certainly, you will enjoy
"When Night Is Falling" more than "Brokeback Mountain" because you liked Edith Piafs "l'Hymne A
l'Amour."

xxxxxxxxxxxx

__________________________________ September 17, 2009 __________________________________

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                       7:23pm

MOVIE AGAIN

Star Cinema's "In My Life," the ABS-CBN Movie outfit's grandest film offering for 2009, earned a record
P20 million in ticket sales on its first day of screening. I don't recommend you and Owen this move (but
Gener, Tiya and Yaya would enjoy watching this together ... He He He) TAKE CARE!

__________________________________ September 18, 2009 __________________________________

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                       7:00am

Some Kind

honey i'm some kind of sloth at home and enjoy much freedom, and i miss you, tsup! tsup! tsup! take care
always. see you later!

__________________________________ September 18, 2009 __________________________________

Emily San Gaspar                                                                                          11:18pm

I think i would be watching in my life, have you watched it? Is it nice?

__________________________________ September 19, 2009 __________________________________

xxxxxxxxxxxx

24
Eliza B. Yu                                                                                                        4:07pm
IN MY LIFE

hey fb sweetie, ems not that i don't want to accompany you in a movie house, it's just that you succeeded
heating me up with that 69 meal stub, it will be dangerous ... to watch this in my life movie together, i
may go down on you in a movie house that would be highly scandalous ... I will give you a dvd/vcd of it,
I will go to video shops for it tomorrow (whether you have watched it or not, even I did not recommend it
to you) ... i am trying to shrug off a fuzzy, groovy feeling with you, OH NO! anyways, take care, take
care, take care, i knew you have convention next week. if you are interested to join with us at GUMBO
resto next week, just say so (dean froilan is a great guy, and a genius, interesting to meet him, this i
recommend to you). Oh, i still have to give you complimentary copies of my articles published in the
lawyers review. you gotta wait, i keep my promises. see you later . x's and o's for you. p.s. movie
watching is not my ideal activity with you (it's at the bottom of the list, i rather watch you than tagalog
movies).[147]
Judge San Gaspar-Gito decided to deactivate her Facebook account. Yet, the deactivation did not deter
Judge Yu from sending messages to Judge San Gaspar-Gito's Yahoo account to expr ss her disagreement
over the Facebook deactivation, thus:
[No Subject]                                                          Friday, September 25,2009 6:14PM

From: "ELIZA YU"

To: emily_san_gaspar@yahoo.com

Dear Emily, what happened to your FB account?

I told you to rest, I understand that it's so tiring
after travelling, our bodies crave sleep!
If I have your mobile no., I could have flown there
and joined you. Still, I believe there is plenty of time
ahead of us. Anyway, I did not mean you stay away
from Facebook or me... COME ON, tell me, you are joking
giving up Facebook ... you have ovet 190 friends, they will
MISS you. You have my no. still (09175217828), you can contact me,
you should contact me, I am not running away from you, rain or shine.
I will stay even I am a problem. Take care always.
Talk and see you later. Of course, God bless us. [148]

Facebook                                                          Monday, September 28, 2009 5:45PM

From: "ELIZA YU"

To: emily_san_gaspar@yahoo.com

Dear Emily, I raised the issue

before, about 4 months ago, about your
membership in Facebook, your
answer was acceptable...

Your declaration about consensus

in the convention seems to be an
after-thought, logic rejects it
as plausible. But I BELIEVE you.
There is no reason not to TRUST you.

25
I also understand the consensus.

Because you seemed HAPPY connecting

to your friends particularly those very
far in FB, it's not a smart choice to sacrifice
your happiness at the expense of consensus.
Also, there are ways to circumvent
the consensus' prohibition. You can change your
name to your nickname, and remove traces that
will link it to your work. You blended your
work with your personal life in FB,
of course your work's nature extend to your
personal life, the price you pay, not because of
the demand of your work, it's the price for your
your idealism with your work. It's up to
you what perspective you take, you
are intelligent, you ought to choose the best
option. Your FB speaks a lot about you.
You may not talk much about yourself in mails
but by reading your posts and looking at
your photos, you give clues of yourself,
you leave lots of fingerprints online.
Deactivating it is not the best option,
For now...

By the way, our office told me, I cannot

troubleshoot in your court, because you
have two prosecutors already NO ROOM FOR ME THERE.
I told the staff to call you up about this.
I promised to troubleshoot next month, which
is not possible to happen. I learned that your
court was Hooded, I was at home when notified,
I failed to help you clean up the mess. That's why,
there is the importance of mobile connection.
Besides, I will only call you if I have your cell no.
not text you. An1way, take care always.
God bless you.[149]

PS                                                                      Monday, September 28, 2009 6:06PM

From: "ELIZA YU"

To: emily_san_gaspar@yahoo.com

ems, don't be like

MeTC magistrate (one of
Your judges pals according to your FB posting) who
permanently dismissed a case on the ground of
speedy trial when accused
jumped bail.

When there was a MR by

26
the prosecutor, it was
granted on the basis of
substantive justice.

Of course, there was double jeopardy

already, the MR was granted
correctly. And the pemanent (sic)
dismissal was wrong.

You are intelligent, you

finished your law schooling at
24 years old ranked 5th in your
class ... DO NOT DE-ACTIVATE
YOUR FACEBOOK FOR MORE THAN
3 MONTHS.
Talk and see you later.[150]

Oh God, I Forgot ...                                          Monday, September 28, 2009 8:47PM

From: "ELIZA YU"

To: emily_san_gaspar@yahoo.com

Tsup! Honey, next time you re-activate your FB,

pls. change your ...
PHOTO PROFILE
DELETE:
Your Status, Birthday,
School, Work,
and all your PHOTOS.
it's OK to be wild online...
Be cautious and prudent.
Take care always.

Couple of weeks, I will be very busy will [sic] school

papers due to ending sem and
my second wind, will re-lobby
for my promotion.
Sept 30, I have lunch with ...
Oct 1, I have dinner with ...
Oct 2, I have appointment with ...
Oct 3, I have my last report
 I have dinner at Gumbo for Dean's birthday
Oct 5, I have lunch at Aristocrat
Oct 6, I have cocktail at Manila Hotel
Oct 7, I have appointment at Ajinomoto
Oct 8, I will meet ...
Oct 9, I will meet another ...

I am regular troubleshooter, too.

I will see you later. Of course, I miss you.
God bless. MWAH! tsup ...[151]

27
A month after sending the meal stub message, Judge Yu apologized for said message, to wit:
I AM SO SORRY ...                                            Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:22AM

From: "ELIZA YU"

To: emily_san_gaspar@yahoo.com

Hello there Emily, I found out that Facebook sent

unauthorized gifts (lewd ones) to its account
subscribers, I asked my classmates if they sent
this and that gift applications and they said no.

I am so sorry for my nonsense replies to

that 69 gift application I received from your
Facebook account (which you wondered).
Now, I believe it was not you who sent it to me.
I could have been a Facebook computer system error
or maybe a Facebook prank hacker.

I deleted all your emails. I hope

you will delete my emails to you also
including this email for peace of mind
and as a safety measure.
OH FORGET ALL MY EMAILS TO YOU SINCE JUNE AFTER
READING & RIDDING THIS APOLOGY EMAIL. Deal??
This is our MOA.

It's a good choice to deactivate your Facebook

account - it will bring you good harm.
Sometimes, you have to convince yourself
that your status has changed a lot, you change friends, you change status, change lifestyle and
... leave Face book.

I cannot deactivate my Facebook account,

it was Dean Froilan Bacungan who invited me to
join. I created my Facebook account for him.
Thank you. Take care always.
God bless you.

I'M SO SORRY AGAIN ... I gave you lots

of trashes online. Anyway, emails are easy to delete. [152]
Judge Yu subsequently sent an e-mail with a subject that read: "CONGRATS 4 UR ELECTION AS
P.R.O. CDO METC NATIONAL CONVENTION, W/ MORE REASON 2 DELETE MY EMAILS 2 U.
TY. GOD BLESS," but without an accompanying message.[153]

A few weeks later, Judge Yu confronted Judge San Gaspar-Gito regarding the reactivation of her
Facebook account in the following manner:
CHILL OUT                                                           Friday, October 23, 2009 2:13AM

From: "ELIZA YU"

To: emily_san_gaspar@yahoo.com

28
Hey Milay, I have a trouble shooting assignment
this coming Monday (October 26) in MeTc Branch 23,
I will pass by your court for sure,
I will drop by, unless I'm in a bad mood
like you today! Chill out ... it's basic, when the answer
to the question is obvious DO NOT ANSWER!
Why did you re-activate your Facebook account?
Oh No, you gave a wrong answer!
As expected, you are an Oscar awardee, remember?
Hhhmmm... lots of Oscar trophies you quite
collected at Facebook (He He He).
Nobody can prohibit you in the
exercise of your POLICE POWER in the
Facebook - that's the force of lust (He He He).
Your little siesta wants your photos?

Of course not, you look prettier in person

than in photos. I don't think your
prettiest photo can substitute the real you,
you are so warm in person.
Take care always.[154]
Judge San Gaspar-Gito was prompted to explain that her sister had used her Facebook account, [155] but
Judge Yu apparently disbelieved the explanation and retorted instead:
Be Right Back                                                      Friday, October 23, 2009 10:42PM

From: "ELIZA YU"

To: emily_san_gaspar@yahoo.com

Hello there Ems, the sister act explanation was cool! I'm sure it will be accepted by your MeTCJAP in
case it found out you still maintain a Facebook account notwithstanding its express prohibition. Congrats,
you seemed to be a member of the "palusot".com! (He He He)

What is the name of your sister? You mean having same parents? Affinity? Sorority? Job-related?
Religious Organization? I thought you were the youngest child. Did I hear it right, you said while I was
looking at your gold medal on the wall, you have 5 siblings? Going back to your sister, why would she do
that? First, isn't she confident enough to be herself online? Second, she is unaware that it will put you in
harm by feigning to be you? Third, did you not warn her? Fourth, Why did you tolerate her? You could
have changed your password anytime so she cannot have an access.

I thought it was definitely a rude answer(@ yahoo) as to why you re activated you Facebook account?
Only, I cannot judge you or anyone online, ifs not my task to do so. As I said before, it is OK to be wild,
wild, wild online.

Actually, your FB account was checking my FB account at those times you de-activated it. I laughed at
you ... oh no, not you ... now, your sister for it. Still, it was the reason for my writing of "daily activity"
entries at FB that I was doing OK - after you went "PUFF" at FB, without saying any goodbye. Of course,
I may deserve it, you may expect something, I failed to write, like a visit perhaps. But you did not give
me your mobile no. so no seeing, only reading mails. Hhhmmm ... so your sister got my mobile no. also.
It's so cool! There is a possibility, it was your sister, I talked to online or did those stuff which I believed
it was you from June to October. Well, then, I should meet your sister! Is she living with your popsie?
What is the name your father? Let us then visit them.

29
Anyway, I have to go, I will visit the Franciscan missionary after this. I will donate biscuits and fruit
juices for the abandoned children. I have a favourite cousin, with an awesome academic credentials and
very pretty, who is a miraculous real, real in flesh, real in her words and deed, a sister belonging to the
Franciscan missionary. She was assigned in Italy for almost 10 years as a nun, and she can read, write,
Italian. I have to buy her a cake, it's her birthday today. Doesn't Italy means an abbreviation of I Trust
And Love You?

I will talk to you later. I will drop by at your court on October 26, for sure am to pass by in going or
coming from MeTc Branch 23, my first time to go there. I'm so accessible, so simple. It was you, or it
was your sister, should I say, that make things complicated. The article, "A Tribute to a Great Mentor", it
was your sister who wrote it? Well, Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez is her ideal woman. A tall order.
Oh no, no need to tell me the orientation or preference of the author of the article by mere reading of it.
Take care always. God bless you always. Be right back. [156]
The following day, Judge Yu sent another lengthy message apologizing for her previous actions. [157] But
to add more confusion, Judge Yu sent a message on November 17, 2009 containing a La Paz Bachoy
recipe, but with a notation at the end reading: we shall claim the 69 meal stub in a dirty kitchen.[158]

Aside from attributing to Judge Yu the sending of messages containing sexual innuendos, Judge San
Gaspar-Gito accused her of creating a fake Facebook account under the name "Rudela San Gaspar." That
account contained captured photographs, including that of the complainant's son allegedly taken from her
deactivated account. Judge San Gaspar-Gito confronted Judge Yu and threatened to initiate an
administrative complaint. This threat prompted the respondent to take down the fake account. [159]

The complainant also received a message on April 2, 2010 with an attached image of a boy holding a pair
of scissors,[160] and a sign reading Full Brazillian 5¢.[161]

The last straw came on July 4, 2010 when Judge San Gaspar-Gito received a message from her friend,
Juliet Tabanao-Galicinao, informing her that a certain Bambi Yu had inquired about her sexual
orientation, viz.:
Juliet Tabanao-Galicinao July 4 at 12:15am
(no subject)

Milay:

Some crazy woman e-mailed me. Her name is bambi yu. I accepted her on Facebook because she told me
you were friends. Then last Friday, she sent me a weird message asking if you were bisexual. I promptly
answered her and after that, I deleted her from my facebook list, as well as any common friends we might
have. I am telling you this so you will be warned that there are envious people like this. I am copying here
the contents of our exchange for your own records.

as follows:

bambi yu:

I read your post about judge of the year award to Milay today. I was about to comment but your post
disappeared. She wrote me months ago that she closed her Facebook account because it became a
Pandora's box. I'm curious, is she an AC DC?? (I am actually laughing) You are listed as among her best
friends, you must be competent to answer this inquiry. Rest assured that this is highly confidential.
Thanks. God bless..

30
Juliet Tabanao-Galicinao July 2 at 8:19am what is an AC DC?

Bambie Yu July 2 at 3:48pm Report

AC DC is non-offensive slang for bisexual. Is she a bisexual? Thanks for replying. Judges have limited
correspondence here at FB..

Juliet Tabanao-Galicinao July 2 at 8:45pm

Hi! Emily is definitely not bisexual. We have been friends and roomates in school for ages and I can
honestly say she is straight. She is also very happily married with one kid. I am not saying this because
we are friends. I am just stating a fact. I am not offended though. Glad I was able to correct a mistake.
What made you think so? (just wondering)

Bambie Yu July 3 at 5:48am Report

What made me think Milay is an AC DC? It does not matter. While I thank you for your honest to
goodness answer, and I would like to return the favor by answering your question but judges have
restrictions and limited correspondence online. Judges are expected to be courteous to fellow judges. I
promised not to speak or write anything about Emily that would put her in bad light. I honor my promises.
She has high aspirations in the judiciary which we should support. Besides, we are enemies for judicial
excellence awards. You can ask her directly the question please. She is the only one who can answer it
correctly. My lips are sealed this time. Have a nice day. Thank you. God bless!

Bambie Yu July 3 at 6:04am Report

PS: Just to take advantage of your generosity, because Emily broke her vow not to open her Facebook
account which she claimed to be Pandora's box, can you do me a little favor, to ask her to delete all my
emails? She told me she kept all my old emails despite my instruction to delete them after reading. Our
emails contained gossips which will lead to our disbarment as honorable members of the bar. Thus, I was
anxious to learn from your post that hinted she opened up her Facebook account again yesterday, this
meant she broke a vow. My emails may still be there, and I have waited for her assurance that she have
deleted all. I did not receive any such assurance from her that my emails are gone except that she closed
her FB account. I was relieved with that closed FB account until yesterday. I kept writing her before to
delete my emails. She does not reply. Anyway, I am not going to speak anything bad against her. I would
be glad if I will get an assurance from you, as her bestfriend, that she already deleted the emails. We are
not speaking to each other because we have a huge misunderstanding and, I said earlier, we are enemies,
mortal enemies for the judicial excellence award.

Thank you again & good day.[162]

Judge San Gaspar-Gito formally filed the present administrative complaint on July 12, 2010. [163]

Judge Yu submitted her comment by way of a compliance dated October 12, 2010, [164] and attached her
own complaint-affidavit charging Judge San Gaspar-Gito with conduct unbecoming of a judge, and
requesting the OCA to conduct a discreet investigation on the complaint. [165] She manifested that she had
come upon two versions of Judge San Gaspar-Gito's complaint. [166]

The following day, Judge Yu wrote to the OCA expressing her dissatisfaction over the investigation being
conducted by the OCA.[167]

31
On October 22, 2010 Judge Yu submitted a supplemental manifestation arguing that Judge San Gaspar-
Gito did not only violate the Code of Judicial Ethics, the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code, but also
Republic Act No. 8792, specifically Section 32[168] on confidentiality of electronic messages. She
described the complaint letters as poison letters, and denied all the material averments stated therein. [169]

Judge San Gaspar-Gito submitted her reply.[170]

Judge Yu wrote the OCA on March 18, 2011 formally withdrawing her complaint against Judge San
Gaspar-Gito.[171]

On July 22, 2011, Judge Yu sent a letter to Judge San Gaspar-Gito's brother, Atty. Reynaldo L. San
Gaspar,[172] to wit:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 47, Pasay City
Tel. No. 831-1109

July 22, 2011

Atty. Reynaldo L. San Gaspar

No. 154 P. Talavera St.,
Pakil, 4017, Laguna

Dear Atty. San Gaspar:

Our court is inviting you for a brief conference in our court on August 5, 2011 around 1:00 p.m. to 4:00
p.m. or any available and convenient time and place for you, to clarify matters pertaining to the two (2)
letters both dated July 12, 2010 of your sister Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito. She can come with you if
she wants to.

Your cooperation is highly appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

(sgd.)
Judge Eliza B. Yu

Copy furnished:
Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito
Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 20, Manila
In the meantime, the Court referred the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), [173] and directed Judge San
Gaspar-Gito to allow the Chief of the Management Information System Office (MISO) to gain access to
her Facebook and Yahoo accounts.

Pursuant to the Court's directive, the MISO accessed the Yahoo and Facebook accounts of Judge San
Gaspar-Gito. Later on, Mr. Alexander M. Arevalo, the Acting Chief of the MISO, submitted his report,
[174]
 attaching and certifying to the messages/communications extracted from the Yahoo and Facebook
accounts of Judge San Gaspar-Gito.[175]

32
In her memorandum,[176] Judge Yu accused Judge San Gaspar-Gito with dishonesty and violation of the
right to privacy.[177] She insisted on her innocence, claiming that Judge San Gaspar-Gito had sent her the
meal stub with the attached image; that based on her research, the image was a photo engraving by
Felicien Rops for Le Diable au Corps in 1865,[178] which should be treated as an artwork rather than as
pornography;[179] that she had treated the message as a joke, but Judge San Gaspar-Gito would continually
send similar graphics through the Facebook gift section everytime she would ask her to troubleshoot in
her sala;[180] that she did not send some of the messages to Judge San Gaspar-Gito whom she knew to be
very much married;[181] that she had become alarmed upon learning that Judge San Gaspar-Gito had
repeatedly read her messages, and had treated the same as "treasures" that she had refused to delete;
[182]
 and that her messages were intended to be "double entendres" and should not be considered as having
any sexual connotations but instead as having been innocently uttered. [183]

In her September 26, 2013 manifestation,[184] Judge Yu attached a copy of her credit card bill supposedly
showing that she had been charged $10.00 when she opened the meal stub sent by Judge San Gaspar-
Gito. She posited that the lewd graphics had originated from Judge San Gaspar-Gito who had tampered
the electronic messages submitted as evidence herein. [185]

Regarding her exchanges with Ms. Galicinao, Judge Yu invoked the exclusionary rule because she did not
give her consent to use the private messages as evidence. [186]

CA Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid conducted the investigation, and scheduled several hearings.
It appears that despite notice, Judge Yu did not appear in the hearings, and instead manifested her
willingness to submit the matter for decision based on the records. She also waived her attendance,
including the right to cross examine the complainant, [187] in order to avoid generating "hostile feelings and
antagonistic views" upon the entry of appearance as counsel of Atty. Gener Gito, Judge San Gaspar-Gito's
husband.[188]

Justice Abdulwahid submitted his Report and Recommendation dated September 26, 2013, [189] wherein he
recommended the suspension from office of Judge Yu for a period of three months due to simple
misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge. He concluded that the barrage of inappropriate messages
sent by Judge Yu, as well as her stalking through the internet, constituted conduct unbecoming of a judge;
and that her use of her court's letterhead to summon the complainant's brother fell under the category of
simple misconduct.

Recommendation and Evaluation of the Office of the Court Administrator

On October 13, 2015, the Court directed the OCA to submit a comprehensive evaluation, report and
recommendation on the consolidated cases.[190]

The OCA complied through Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino [191] by
submitting a Memorandum[192] containing the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court
that respondent Judge Eliza B. Yu, Branch 47, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City, be
found GUILTY of INSUBORDINATION, GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, REFUSAL TO
PERFORM OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS, GROSS MISCONDUCT AMOUNTING TO VIOLATION
OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, OPPRESSION,
and CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A JUDGE, and be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with
forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any Rublic office including government-owned or controlled corporations. [193]

33
The OCA recommended that the charges of gross ignorance of the law in allowing OJTs to perform
judicial work and directing the court staff to sell the books authored by Judge Yu, as well as the allegation
of malicious utterances against Court Administrator Marquez should be dismissed for being
unsubstantiated;[194] and upheld Judge Yu's requiring the plaintiffs with pending replevin cases to pay
legal fees for transcripts, pursuant to her judicial prerogative to ensure that court funds were properly
accounted for.[195]

The OCA declared Judge Yu's refusal to comply with A.M. No. 19-2011 and to honor the appointments
of Ms. Lagman and Ms. Tejero-Lopez as insubordination; Judge Yu's letter to DOT Secretary Lim as
gross misconduct, and a violation of Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; Judge Yu's
conduct in relation to the request for sick leave by Noel Labid, and the appointment of Ms. Tejero-Lopez
as oppression;[196] regarded as gross ignorance of the law Judge Yu's acts of allowing the criminal
proceedings in her court to continue without the presence of the public prosecutor, and of ordering the
reception of evidence by the OIC who was not a member of the Bar; [197] and considered Judge Yu's
issuance of the show cause order against Executive Judge Colasito, et al. as grave abuse of her authority.
[198]

The OCA agreed with the recommendation and findings of Justice Abdulwahid to consider Judge Yu's
actuations towards Judge San Gaspar Gito as conduct unbecoming of a judge, but clarified that Judge
Yu's use of the official letterhead of her court in summoning the brother of Judge San Gaspar-Gito to a
conference demonstrated her abuse of power, and constituted a violation of Section 8, Canon 4 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct.[199]

Ruling of the Court

We agree with the findings and recommendations of the OCA.

I
Noncompliance with A.O. No. 19-2011

Judge Yu forthwith resisted the implementation of A.O. No. 19-2011 because of her unresolved protest
against the issuance. She explained that her compliance with A.O. No. 19-2011 would render her protest
moot. But her unresolved protest was not a sufficient justification for her to resist the implementation of
A.O. No. 19-2011. She was quite aware that A.O. No. 19-2011 was issued pursuant to Section 6, Article
VIII of the Constitution, which confers to the Court the power of administrative supervision over all
courts,[200] and was for that reason an issuance to be immediately implemented and unquestioningly
obeyed by the affected Judges.

The resistance by Judge Yu to the the implementation of A.O. No. 19-2011 was unexpected. She was
quite aware that A.O. No. 19-2011 was not a mere request for her to comply with only partially,
inadequately or selectively,[201] or for her to altogether disregard. At the very least, her resistance to A.O.
No. 19-2011 manifested an uncommon arrogance on the part of a Judge of a court of the first-level
towards the Court itself. Such attitude smacked of her unbecoming condescension towards the Court and
her judicial superiors. We cannot tolerate her attitude lest it needlessly sows the seeds of aiTogance in
others that can ultimately destroy the faith and trust in the hierarchy of courts so essential in the effective
functioning of the administration of justice.

Moreover, Judge Yu's resistance to the implementation of A.O. No. 19-2011 disrupted the orderliness of
the other Pasay City MeTCs to the prejudice of public interest. This effect became unavoidable, for
Executive Judge Colasito necessarily required the other courts to render additional night court duties to
cope with her refusal to render night court duties.

34
Judge Yu compounded her condescension towards the Court and her judicial superiors by her bypassing
them to directly communicate her personal reservations about A.O. No. 19-2011 to Secretary Lim, the
proponent of holding the night courts, and other quarters like the police authority in Pasay City. Her
reservations extended to assailing the legal foundation and the practicality for holding the night courts.
Her doing so broadcast to them the notion that obedience to A.O. No. 19-2011 and similar issuances of
the Court could be deferred at the whim and caprice of a lowly ranked judicial officer like her. Although
she might have regarded her reservations as impressed with outstanding merit, that was no justification
for her to defer or reject the implementation of A.O. No. 19-2011 in her court for any length of time, and
to be public about it. A.O. No. 19-2011 dealt with an administrative matter on the administration of
justice and procedure over which the Court was the supreme and sole authority. She should have the
maturity to know so, and to bow her head before that authority. Her freedom to exercise her constitutional
right to free speech and expression was not a consideration. She had no privilege to disobey; hers was but
to follow.

Judge Yu's having directly communicated her misgivings about A.O. No. 19-2011 to Secretary Lim and
to other quarters was beyond forgiving by the Court. She thereby strongly hinted that the Court was
altogether wrong and impractical about holding night courts. What she accomplished from such exercise
was to broadcast how little regard she had for the Court and its issuances. Her attitude constituted an open
insubordination that extensively diminished the respect owed to the Court by the public, especially by the
latter who were directly affected in the implementation of A.O. No. 19-2011. There is no question that
when a Judge becomes the transgressor of the law that she has sworn to uphold, she places her office in
disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law, and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the
Judiciary itself.[202]

It is timely for the Courrto use this occasion to remind Judge Yu and other judicial officers of the land
that although they may enjoy the freedoms of speech and expression as citizens of the Republic, they
should always conduct themselves, while exercising such freedoms, in a manner that should preserve the
dignity of their judicial offices and the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary. As to this duty to
observe self-restraint, Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary is clear and forthright, viz.:
Sec. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and
assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to
preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
For sure, Judge Yu's expression of her dissent against A.O. No. 19-2011 was misplaced. We may as well
declare that she did not enjoy the privilege to dissent. Regardless of her reasons for dissenting, she was
absolutely bound to follow A.O. No. 19-2011. Indeed, she did not have the unbridled freedom to publicly
speak against A.O. No. 19-2011 and its implementation, for her being the Judge that she was
differentiated her from the ordinary citizen exercising her freedom of speech and expression who did not
swear obedience to the orders and processes of the Court without delay. [203] Her resistance to the
implementation of A.O. No. 19-2011 constituted gross insubordination and gross misconduct, [204] and put
in serious question her fitness and worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to her judicial office. [205]

According to Himalin v. Balderian,[206] the refusal of a Judge to comply with any resolution or directive of
the Court constituted insubordination and gross misconduct, viz.:
[A] judge who deliberately and continuously failed and refused to comply with a resolution of this Court
was held guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination, the Supreme Court being the agency exclusively
vested by our Constitution with administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel from the
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. The Court can hardly
discharge such constitutional mandate of overseeing judges and court personnel and taking proper

35
administrative sanction against them if the judge or personnel concerned does not even recognize its
administrative authority.
Insubordination is the refusal to obey some order that a superior officer is entitled to give and to have ob
yed. It imports a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer.
[207]
 Judge Yu's obstinate resistance to A.O. No. 19-2011 displayed both her rebellious character and her
disdain and disrespect for the Court and its directives.

Judge Yu's unwillingness to comply with A.O. No. 19-2011 was also a betrayal of her sworn duty to
maintain fealty to the law,[208] and brought dishonor to the Judiciary. In that regard, her conduct amounted
to gross misconduct, defined as follows:
Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior
in connection with one's performance of official functions and duties. For grave or gross misconduct to
exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a
persistent disregard of well-known rules. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere
error of judgment.[209]
In all, Judge Yu exhibited an unbecoming arrogance in committing insubordination and gross misconduct.
By her refusal to adhere to and abide by A.O. No. 19-2011, she deliberately disregarded her duty to serve
as the embodiment of the law at all times. She thus held herself above the law by refusing to be bound by
the issuance of the Court as the duly constituted authority on court procedures and the supervision of the
lower courts. To tolerate her insubordination and gross misconduct is to abet lawlessness on her part. She
deserved to be removed from the service because she thereby revealed her unworthiness of being part of
the Judiciary.[210]

II
Refusal to honor the appointments of court personnel

Although Judge Yu insisted on the irregularity of the appointment of Ms. Tejero-Lopez for lack of
personal endorsement from her as the Presiding Judge, and of the appointment of Ms. Lagman due to a
pending administrative complaint, the appointments of Ms. Tejero-Lopez and Ms. Lagman were valid and
regular. As such, Judge Yu had no good reason to reject the appointments.

To start with, Ms. Tejero-Lopez and other applicants had undergone scrutiny and processing by the duly
constituted committee, and the OCA had then signed and executed the appointment. Nonetheless, the
authority to appoint still emanated from the Court itself. [211] Judge Yu's objection to Ms. Tejero-Lopez's
appointment for lack of her personal endorsement was not enough to negate the appointment. Judge Yu
had no right to reject the appointment, making her rejection another instance of gross insubordination by
her. This consequence has been elucidated in Edaño v. Asdala,[212] as follows:
[R]espondent Judge Asdala, in insisting on the designation of respondent Nicandro as OIC, blithely and
willfully disregarded the Memorandum of this Court, through the OCA, which approved the designation
of Amy Soneja alone and not in conjunction with respondent Nicandro - as OIC. While the presiding
judge, such as respondent Judge Asdala, can recommend and endorse persons to a particular
position, this recommendation has to be approved by this Court. Again, the respondent judge ought
to know that the Constitution grants this Court administrative supervision over all the courts and
personnel thereof. In the case at bar, despite the Court's approval of Amy Soneja's designation, the
respondent judge allowed, if not insisted on, the continued discharge of the duties of OIC by respondent
Nicandro. Respondent Judge Asdala even had the gall to insist that as presiding judge she has the
authority and discretion to designate "anyone who works under her, as long as that person enjoys her trust
and confidence." Coming from a judge, such arrogance, if not ignorance, is inexcusable. The
memorandum from the OCA regarding the designation of court personnel is no less an order from this
Court. Court officials and personnel, particularly judges, are expected to comply with the same.
Respondent judge's gross insubordination cannot be countenanced. [213]

36
Judge Yu could only recommend an applicant for a vacant position in her court for the consideration of
the SPBLC, which then accorded priority to the recommendee if the latter possessed superior
qualifications than or was at least of equal qualifications as the other applicants she did not recommend.
[214]
 The SPBLC explained to Judge Yu the selection process that had resulted in the appointment of Ms.
Tejero-Lopez. She could not impose her recommendee on the SPBLC which was legally mandated to
maintain fairness and impartiality in its assessment of the applicants [215] based on performance, eligibility,
education and training, experience and outstanding accomplishments, psycho-social attributes and
personality traits, and potentials.[216]

Secondly, Judge Yu's rejection of the appointment of Ms. Lagman was just as unwarranted.

Under Section 34, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS),
[217]
 a pending administrative complaint shall not disqualifY an employee from promotion, thus:
Section 34. Effect of the Pendency of an Administrative Case. - Pendency of an administrative case shall
not disqualify respondent from promotion or from claiming maternity/paternity benefits.

For this purpose, a pending administrative case shall be construed as follows:

a. When the disciplining authority has issued a formal charge; or

b. In case of a complaint filed by a private person, a prima facie case is found to exist by the disciplining
authority.
The rule, which is reiterated in Section 42 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (RRACCS) of 2011,[218] cannot be interpreted otherwise.

Accordingly, Judge Yu's administrative complaint had no bearing on Ms. Lagman's appointment, more so
because Ms. Lagman was held liable only for simple misconduct, a less grave offense that did not merit
termination from public service for the first offense. [219] It is relevant to point out, too, that Judge Yu had
no personality to object to or oppose Ms. Lagman's appointment, considering that only a qualified next-
in-rank employee has been recognized as a party-in-interest to file the protest in accordance with
paragraph 1.6.1, Article IX of the 2002 Revised Manual of Clerks of Court.[220]

Thirdly, we also take Judge Yu to task for disrespectful language uttered against the Court, no less. She
characterized the appointment of Ms. Tejero-Lopez as "void ab initio" and "a big joke." The use of such
language in assailing the Court's exercise of its absolute power of appointment was highly offensive and
intemperate. She thereby disregarded her obligation to show respect and deference toward the Court and
its officials. She was thereby guilty of another serious misconduct.

And, fourthly, Judge Yu issued verbal threats of filing administrative, civil and criminal charges against
Ms. Tejero-Lopez unless she withdrew her application. Judge Yu reiterated the threats in her letter dated
June 14, 2011 addressed to Atty. Pabello.[221] Ms. Tejero-Lopez felt intimidated enough because she
actually withdrew her application (although she later went on with it). The making of the verbal threats by
Judge Yu to compel a subordinate to withdraw her application constituted grave abuse of authority on the
part of Judge Yu. Grave abuse of authority is committed by a public officer, who, under color of his
office, wrongfully inflicts upon a person any bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury; it is an act
characterized with cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority. Also, the intimidation exerted upon Ms.
Tejero-Lopez amounted to oppression, which refers to an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction,
domination or excessive use of authority.[222]

III
Issuing a show-cause order against fellow Judges and court personnel

37
According to the OCA, Judge Yu gravely abused her authority in issuing the show-cause order against his
fellow Judges, the complainants against her in OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ. The OCA rendered its finding
thereon, as follows:
This Office finds it absolutely irregular for respondent Judge Yu to require the complainants in
OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ to explain within seventy-two (72) hours upon receipt of notice why
they should not be cited in contempt for surreptitiously taking the TSNs, orders and minutes of the
proceedings in Criminal Case No. M-PSY-09-08592-CR and using these as part of their
attachments to their complaint. As the respondent in OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ, respondent Judge
Yu has no authority to summon the complainants (Executive Judge Colasito, et al.) because it is
only the Supreme Court who has the power to issue directives requiring the parties in an
administrative case to appear and to present their respective arguments in support of their position.

Not only is her directive misplaced, it also shows respondent Judge Yu's utter lack of respect and disdain
for the Supreme Court. It must be noted that the parties in Criminal Case No. M-PSY-09-08592-CR (the
accused Ramil Fuentes et al. and the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines) are outsiders to the
administrative controversy between respondent Judge Yu and the complainants in OCA IPI No. 11-2378-
MTJ. However, respondent Judge Yu acted as if she was the investigating authority instead of being
the respondent. She took undue advantage of her position as a judge and used the judicial process
for her own benefit. Such action clearly depicts an abusive character which has no place in the
judiciary. (Bold emphasis supplied)[223]
The issuance of the show-cause order by Judge Yu represented clear abuse of court processes, and
revealed her arrogance in the exercise of her authority as a judicial officer. She thereby knowingly
assumed the role of a tyrant wielding power with unbridled breadth. Based on its supervisory authority
over the courts and their personnel, the Court must chastise her as an abusive member of the Judiciary
who tended to forget that the law and judicial ethics circumscribed the powers and discretion vested in her
judicial office.

Nothing extenuated Judge Yu's abuse of authority and arrogance. Instead of accepting the error of her
ways, Judge Yu defended her conduct by insisting on having the authority to initiate contempt
proceedings against her fellow Judges and court personnel. She supported her insistence by citing the
rulings in People v. Godoy,[224] Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan,[225] and Salcedo v. Hernandez.[226] But the cited
rulings had no relevance at all. People v. Godoy related to the contemptuous newspaper article involving
a case that the trial court had decided. Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan required the Tanodbayan-Ombudsman,
a party in the case, to explain his contumacious remarks about an ongoing case to the media. Salcedo v.
Hernandez concerned the contemptuous remarks by counsel for the petitioner in a motion filed before the
Court. In short, the factual settings for the cited rulings involved parties or counsel of the parties, while
the factual setting in this administrative matter concerned the act of merely copying the records of Judge
Yu's court for purposes of producing evidence against her in the administrative cases her fellow Judges
and the concerned court employees would be initiating against he. The latter were not parties in any
pending case in her court.

Moreover, the Court notes that Judge Yu's issuance of the show-cause order emanated from her desire to
retaliate against her fellow Judges and the concerned court employees considering that the allegedly
contumacious conduct was the copying of court records to be used as evidence in the administrative
complaint against her. She thereby breached her duty to disqualify herself from acting at all on the matter.
Such self-disqualification was required under Section 5, Canon 3, and Section 8 of Canon 4 of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, viz.:
Section 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are
unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are
unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where:

38
(a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;

xxxx

Section 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interest, x
x x.
By insisting on her inherent authority to punish her fellow Judges for contempt of court, Judge Yu
wielded a power that she did not hold. Hence, she was guilty of gross misconduct.

IV
Refusal to sign the application for leave of absence and other allegations of oppression

The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court governs the approval of an application for sick leave by
court "personnel. Paragraphs 2.2.1[227] and 2.2.2,[228] Chapter X of the 2002 Revised Manual requires the
submission of a medical certificate or proof of sickness prior to the approval of the application for sick
leave, thus:
2.2.1 Application for sick leave
All applications for sick leave of absence for one (1) full day or more shall be made on the prescribed
form and shall be filed immediately upon the employee's return from such leave. Notice of absence,
however, should be sent to the immediate supervisor, and/or agency head. Application for sick leave in
excess of five (5) successive days shall be accompanied by a proper medical certificate.

xxxx
2.2.2. Approval of sick leave
Sick leave shall be granted only on account of sickness or disability on the part of the employee
concerned or of any member of his immediate family.

Approval of sick leave, whether with pay or without pay, is mandatory provided proof of sickness
or disability is attached to the application in accordance with the applicable
requirements. Unreasonable delay in the approval thereof or non-approval without justifiable
reason shall be a ground for appropriate sanction against the official concerned. (Emphasis
supplied)
Noel Labid complied with the 2002 Revised Manual by submitting the medical certificate and the clinical
abstracts issued and certified by the Medical Records Division of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH).
The medical certificate indicated that he had been suffering from "Bleeding submandibular mass in
hypovolemic shock Squamous cell Carcinoma Stage IV floor of mouth,"[229] while the clinical abstracts
dated June 14, 2011[230] and June 23, 2011[231] indicated the same reason for his hospital admission.
However, Judge Yu was unconvinced by such submissions, and adamantly refused to approve Noel's
leave application supposedly based on the ruling in Re: Memorandum Report of Atty. Thelma C. Bahia
against Ms. Dorothy Salgado.[232]

Judge Yu apparently misapplied the cited ruling.

Re: Memorandum Report of Atty. Thelma C. Bahia against Ms. Dorothy Salgado concerned the habitual
absenteeism of the respondent court personnel, and her belated submission of the medical certificates
proving her illness. Crucial was the finding that despite several attempts by her office to contact the
respondent and to inquire on her situation, she had deliberately failed to inform her superior of her
absence and her condition. This is not the same in the case of Noel.

39
Under paragraph 2.1.2[233] of the 2002 Revised Manual, heads of offices like Judge Yu possessed the
authority to confirm the employee's claim of ill health. Being aware of Noel's true medical condition after
having met with Mrs. Labid who had seen her to plead for the approval of her son's leave application,
Judge Yu was not justified in demanding a prior written notice about Noel's serious medical condition.
Neither was she justified in still requiring Noel to submit the certificate of fitness to work considering that
he had yet to report for work.

Noel's medical certificate and clinical abstracts had sufficiently established the reason for his absence and
his hospital admission. Despite his obvious critical condition, Judge Yu chose to ignore the medical
records certified by a government health institution, and unjustifiably demanded the submission of
documents that the 2002 Revised Manual did not require. Judge Yu did not convincingly establish that
her actions came within the limits of her authority as a court manager, or were sanctioned by existing
court regulations and policies. Her unjustified refusal to approve Noel's leave application exposed her to
administrative sanction under paragraph 2.2.2 of the 2002 Revised Manual. Accordingly, Judge Yu was
again guilty of grave abuse of authority.

It is not hard to believe that Judge Yu deliberately refused to sign Noel's leave application in order to
cause additional hardship to him in retaliation for his joining the administrative complaint against her. We
consider to be credible Mrs. Labid's narration that Judge Yu had expressed her resentment towards Noel
for his signing the complaint against her. By acting so, therefore, Judge Yu was vindictive, and exhibited
indifference to the plight of the critically ill subordinate in urgent need of assistance. She was guilty of
oppression, which is any act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of
authority constituting oppression.[234] Her oppression did not befit an administrator of justice.

Nonetheless, we dismiss the other allegations of oppression towards the staffmembers of Branch 47 for
failure of the complainants to substantiate the same. In administrative cases, the complainant bears the
burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. [235]

V
Charges of gross ignorance of the law

I. Allowing on-the-job-trainees

In OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ, the complainants charged that Judge Yu had allowed on-the-job trainees
(OJTs) to have access to court records. She denied this charge, however, and claimed that the students
were merely "observers" because of the prohibition. The OCA found this charge unsubstantiated.

We do not agree with the OCA's finding.

The memorandum dated November 2, 2010[236] issued by Judge Yu indicated her intention to delegate the
duties of an encoder to a certain Ms. Angelica Rosali, one of the OJTs concerned, thus:
MEMORANDUM

TO: Mrs. Amor Abad, Officer-in-Charge, Mr. Romer Aviles and Mr. Froilan Robert Tomas,
Stenographers, Mrs. Emelina San Miguel, Records Officer, Mrs. Maxima Sayo, Process Server, and Ms.
Angelica Rosali, Encoder.

RE: Preference of Typing Orders, Encoding of Monthly Report, Submission of Monthly Report, Typing
of Pro-Forma Notices and Orders and Other Related Concerns

In the interest of service, the stenographers are ordered to type first the orders on sentence, dismissal and

40
archival of cases within the day of issuing the same in open court. Said orders must be placed at the
court's chambers before 2:00 p.m. for signature after checking of the case titles and dates by the office[r]-
in-charge. Thereafter, after (sic) signing of these orders by the undersigned judge, these will be forwarded
to the encoder of the monthly report. The encoder shall encode immediately these orders upon receipt
thereof. The encoder shall be responsible for the typing of newly filed criminal and civil cases, the
cases submitted for decision, and the cases decided, dismissed and archived. Upon receipt of the
newly filed criminal or civil cases within a day, the officer-incharge shall place them, at the court's
chambers. After the evaluation of these cases, the undersigned judge shall instruct the officer-in-charge to
turn over these cases to the encoder for typing. Thereafter, after (sic) these newly filed criminal and civil
cases are typed and printed within the day, a copy shall be furnished to the undersigned judge. The said
cases will be given by the officer-in-charge to the records officer and process server for safekeeping. The
monthly report must be submitted within the 1st week up to the 2nd week of the following month.

All other orders must be typed within the week after their issuance in open court. Every Friday, the
Officer-in-Charge must see to it that all orders issued within the week are typed within the same week.

After the receipt of the printed copy of the newly filed civil and criminal cases from the encoder, the
undersigned judge shall instruct the officer-in-charge to calendar these cases and to delegate fairly the
typing of the notices of these cases. The officer-in-charge is directed to mimeograph the forms of
subpoenas, summons, other notices, order to file an answer or counter-affidavit in cases covered by the
Rule on Summary Procedure, order for the issuance of warrant of arrest, warrant of arrest, commitment
order, minutes, pre-trial order and such other pro-forma orders as determined by this Court subject to
delegation. With respect to an order on archiving of a case, there must be a corresponding warrant of
arrest. The Officer-in-Charge is responsible for the checking of the correct name of the case title,
date, parties and addresses of these proforma orders subject to delegation. Erroneous typing of case
title, date, parties and addresses, among others is considered gross inefficiency if committed ten (10)
consecutive times, and it calls [f]or an explanation. If re-committed another ten (10) consecutive
times, this merits disciplinary sunction. (Emphasis supplied)

For strict compliance.

Thank you.

(Sgd.) Eliza B. Yu
Judge
That the memorandum was not disseminated to the person concerned, and that it was not implemented
were immaterial to the charge. The fact that Judge Yu issued the memorandum naming Ms. Rosali, a
student, as the encoder and assigning to her court duties similar to those of a regular court employee
signified Judge Yu's intention to treat Ms. Rosali as a trainee instead of as a mere observer. Ms. Rosali
denied in her sinumpaang salaysay[237] that she had received the memorandum and performed encoding
tasks, but nonetheless confirmed that she was directed to docket the decisions and staple the returns. The
other student "observers," namely: Ms. Johaira O. Mababaya, Ms. Catherine L. Sarate and Mr. Eduardo
M. Pangilinan III, also attested that they had conducted their court observation as "assistant court
stenographer."

Under the circumstances, Judge Yu could not feign ignorance of the tasks assigned to and performed by
the OJTs. If she had been strict about accepting student trainees, then she should not have assigned court-
related tasks. In this regard, Judge Yu deliberately ignored OCA Circular No. 111-2005 in prohibiting
OJTs, thus:
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 111-2005

41
TO : THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 5-2003 Re: PROHIBITING THE ACCOMODATION

OF STUDENTS TO UNDERGO ON-THE-JOB TRAINING/PRACTICUM IN THE DIFFERENT
OFFICES OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court En Banc in its Resolution dated 6 September 2005, in A.M. No. 05-7-16-SC, Re:
Analysis of the Current Judicial System Using Information Technology by Student of the De La Salle
University, Resolved to direct the undersigned to CIRCULARIZE to all lower courts Memorandum
Circular No. 05-2003 dated 25 June 2003, to wit:

"MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 5-2003

PROHIBITING THE ACCOMMODATION OF STUDENTS TO UNDERGO ON-THE-JOB

TRAINING/PRACTICUM IN THE DIFFERENT OFFICES OF THE COURT

It is observed that some offices of the Court allow students of different colleges and universities to
undergo on-the-job training/practicum without authority or approval by the Chief Justice.

Due to security reasons which prompted the Court to deny previous requests of colleges and universities
for on-the-job training/practicum, it is noted that the practice of some offices allowing students to
undergo on-the-job training/practicum jeopardizes not only the functions of some offices but also their
confidential records. Notably, the accommodation of these students pose as a security risk.

ACCORDINGLY, in order to ensure the security of officials and employees of the Court as well as its
records, all Chiefs of Offices/Services/Divisions of the Court, including those of the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal, Judicial and Bar Council and the Philippine Judicial Academy, are hereby directed to disallow
on-the-job training/practicum in their respective offices/services/divisions.

xxxx

The provision of the above memorandum shall likewise apply to all trial courts to serve as a guide
for similar requests of students and as reflective of the policy of the Court on the matter.

For the information and guidance of all concerned.

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
II. Designating an Officer-in-Charge

Judge Yu designated as OIC of Branch 47 of the MeTC Mr. Ferdinand Santos, who occupied the position
of Clerk III. Under the 2002 Revised Manual, the position of Clerk III fell under the first level position
with a minimum educational requirement of two years of college studies, [238] and a career service sub-
professional eligible.[239] The position of Clerk of Court III was a second level position with a minimum
educational requirement of a Bachelor of Laws degree, at least one year relevant experience, four hours of
relevant training, and a professional career service eligible. [240]

On the other hand, the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 06-05 dated February 15, 2005 provides the
following guidelines:

42
 CSC MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 06-05
 
TO: All Heads of Constitutional Bodies; Departments, Bureaus and Agencies of the National
Government; Local Government Units; Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations;
and State Universities and Colleges

SUBJECT: Guidelines on Designation

In its Resolution No. 050157 dated February 7, 2005, the Commission has adopted the following
guidelines on Designation in the civil service:
xxxx

B. Designees can only be designated to positions within the level they are currently occupying. However,
Division Chiefs may be designated to perform the duties of third level positions.

First level personnel cannot be designated to perform the duties of second level positions.

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Designating a first-level personnel like Mr. Santos as OIC defied CSC Memorandum Circular No. 06-05
because the position of OIC was reserved for personnel belonging to the second level. It becomes
immaterial whether nobody from Branch 47 opposed the designation because the memorandum circular
expressly prohibits designation of first level personnel to a second level position. It is emphasized that the
memorandum is crafted in the negative; hence, the memorandum is mandatory, and imports that the act
required shall not be done otherwise than designated. [241]

Judge Yu's contention that the designation of the OIC was based on trust and confidence had no basis. We
underscore that the OIC referred to here was the acting Branch Clerk of Court (Clerk of Court III). The
2002 Revised Manual enumerates the following duties and responsibilities of a branch clerk of court, viz.:
1.3.1 Adjudicative Support Functions
1.3.1. Attends all court sessions
1
1.3.1. Supervises the withdrawal of all records of cases to be heard and the preparation of the
2 notices of hearings, court's calendar, reports, minutes, monthly reports, inventory of cases,
index of exhibits, and paging of records of cases;
1.3.1. Sees to it that all returns of notices are attached to the corresponding evidence properly
3 marked during the hearing as collected in an exhibit folder; and
1.3.1. Signs notices of orders and decisions for service to the parties, release papers of detained
4 prisoners who are acquitted and/or who filed their corresponding bail bonds duly
approved by the presiding judge.
1.3.2 Non-Adjudicative Functions
1.3.2. Plans, directs, supervises and coordinates the activities of all personnel in a branch of a
1 multiple sala for effectiveness and efficiency;
1.3.2. Keeps tab of the attendance and whereabouts of court personnel during office hours;
2
1.3.2. Controls and manages all court records, exhibits, documents, properties and supplies;
3
1.3.2. Administers oath;
4
1.3.2. Issues certificates of appearances and clearances;

43
5
1.3.2. Drafts/prepares correspondence and indorsements for signature :of the Judge; and
6
1.3.2. Performs other duties that may be assigned to him.
7
Clerks of court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound administration
of justice. Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns. They
perform delicate functions as designated custodians of the courts funds, revenues, records, properties and
premises.[242] The functions of a clerk of court require a higher degree of education as well as
understanding of the law and court processes, that they cannot be delegated to first level personnel such
as Mr. Santos. The position requires not only trust and confidence, but most importantly, education and
experience. Ineluctably, the respondent ignored the clear import of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 06-
05 in designating Mr. Santos as OIC.

III. Ordering presentation of ex parte evidence before the OIC who was not a member of the Bar

Judge Yu argued that she did not commit any irregularity in ordering the presentation of ex
parte evidence before herOIC who was not a member of the Bar because the rule on the reception of
evidence by a member of the Bar was only directory under Section 9, Rule 30 of the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure, which uses the word may.

Judge Yu's argument does not impress.

Section 9, Rule 30 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure expressly requires that only clerks of court
who are members of the Bar can be delegated to receive evidence ex parte, thus:
Section 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of court. - The judge of the court where the
case is pending shall personally receive the evidence to be adduced by the parties. However, in
default or ex parte hearings, and in any case where the parties agree in writing, the court may
delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court who is a member of the bar. The clerk of court
shall have no power to rule on objections to any question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections
shall be resolved by the court upon submission of his report and the transcripts within ten (10) days from
termination of the hearing. (Emphasis supplied)
The word may used in the rule related only to the discretion by the trial court of delegating the reception
of evidence to the Clerk of Court, not to the requirement that the Clerk of Court so delegated be a member
of the Bar. The rule on ex parte reception of evidence was unequivocal on this point, and required no
elaboration. Neither the agreement by the parties nor their acquiescence could justify its violation. [243] It
followed that Judge Yu could not validly allow the presentation of evidence ex parte before Mr. Santos
who was a mere OIC because he was not a member of the Bar. Breach of the rule on reception of
evidence represented her ignorance of the rule of procedure in question, and subjected her to
administrative liability for misconduct.[244]

IV. Allowing criminal proceedings without the actual participation of the public prosecutor

Anent the charge that she allowed the prosecution of criminal actions without the presence of the public
prosecutor, Judge Yu retorted that the complainants were not the proper parties to assail her orders; that
the accused in People v. Manduriao had begged to be arraigned without counsel after being informed of
the penalty for the offense charged; and that the trial of the case could proceed without the public
prosecutor, b ut not in the absence of a judge.[245]

We are appalled that a Judge like the respondent would explain herself in such a fundamentally wrong

44
manner.

Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court states:

Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. - All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. In case of heavy
work schedule or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecution
Office to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the Court. Once so authorized to prosecute the
criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even
in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.

xxxx

Accordingly all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the control and direction of the public
prosecutor.[246] The true reason is that the prosecution of criminal offenses is always a public function.
[247]
 In People v. Ramos,[248] we cautioned that the exception stated in Section 5, supra, should be strictly
construed, thus:
The exception provided in Section 5 must be strictly applied as the prosecution of crime is the
responsibility of officers appointed and trained for that purpose. The violation of the criminal laws
is an affront to the People of the Philippines as a whole and not merely the person directly
prejudiced, who is merely the complaining witness. This being so, it is necessary that the
prosecution be handled by persons sldlled in this function instead of being entrusted to private
persons or public officers with little or no preparation for this responsibility. The exception should
be allowed only when the conditions therefor as set forth in Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure have been clearly established.
In Pinote v. Ayco,[249] the Court castigated the respondent judge for allowing the presentation of the
defense witnesses in the absence of the public prosecutor or the private prosecutor specially designated
for the purpose. A breach of the Rules of Court like that could not be rectified by subsequently giving the
Prosecution the chance to cross-examine the witnesses. Judge Yu committed a flagrant error by allowing
the direct examination of the defense witness without the public prosecutor, or without the private counsel
duly authorized by the public prosecutor in Criminal Case No. M-PSY-09-08592-CR.

In addition, Judge Yu disregarded Section 6, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court when she allowed the change
of plea by the accused in People v. Manduriao without the assistance of counsel. Judge Yu justified
herself by claiming that she had apprised the accused of the penalty for the offense charged, which had
then convinced the accused to change his plea.

The Court cannot accept her justification. In Gamas v. Oco,[250] we took the respondent judge to task for
conducting an arraignment without the presence of counsel, and observed:
Section 6 of Rule 116 means that:
[W]hen a defendant appears [at the arraignment] without [an] attorney, the court has four important duties
to comply with: 1-It must inform the defendant that it[,] is his right to have [an] attorney before being
arraigned; 2-After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of attorney; 3-
If he desires and is unable to employ [an] attorney, the court must assign [an] attorney de oficio to defend
him; and 4-If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a reasonable
time therefor.
Compliance with these four duties is mandatory. The only instance when the court can arraign an accused
without the benefit of counsel is if the accused waives such right and the court, finding the accused
capable, allows him to represent himself in person. However, to be a valid waiver, the accused must make
the waiver voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. In determining whether the accused can make a valid

45
waiver, the court must take into account all the relevant circumstances, including the educational
attainment of the accused. In the present case, however, respondent judge contends that complainants
waived their right to counsel and insisted on their immediate arraignment. [251]
The justification that the accused had waived his right to counsel, and had changed his plea after the
respondent Judge had explained to him the imposable penalty for the offense did not stand considering
that in order that the waiver by the accused of his right to counsel would be valid, the trial court must
ensure that the accused did so voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently, taking into account the capacity of
the accused to give such consent. We have nothing to show that Judge Yu took the pains to enforce the
safeguards.

Every judge was expected to know the fundamental substantive and procedural requirements on
arraignment and right to counsel.[252] We have always been clear about the right of the accused to counsel
under the Constitution, and about the requirements for the arraignment of an accused under the Rules of
Court. As such, Judge Yu was guilty of gross ignorance of the law, which is ignorance of the law when
the law is so elementary, and when one professes not to know it, or when one acts as if she does not know
it. Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct prescribes that competence is a prerequisite to the due
performance of the judicial office. In Judge Yu's case, her competence was indispensable to her fair and
proper administration of justice in her office. By failing to adhere to and implement existing laws,
policies, and the basic rules of procedure, she seriously compromised her ability to be an effective
magistrate.

VI
Sending of inappropriate messages was conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer

Judge Yu denied sending the messages to Judge San Gaspar-Gito, and countered that it was the latter who
first sent the "meal stub" message. She maintained that the messages were confidential and inadmissible
as evidence under the exclusionary rule.

Judge Yu's reliance on the exclusionary rule fails.

The exclusionary rule, or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, presupposes a violation of law on the
part of the agents of the Govemment,[253] and bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the
right against unreasonable searches and seizures expressly defined under Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution.[254] The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution refers to the
prohibition against the issuance of general warrants that encourage law e nforcers to go on fishing
expeditions.[255]

Judge Yu did not specify that the State had unlawfully intruded into her privacy. The subjects of the
present inquiry were the messages sent by her to Judge San Gaspar-Gito. Regardless of the mode of their
transmission, the ownership of the messages pertained to the latter as the recipient. Considering that it
was the latter who granted access to such messages, there was no violation of Judge Yu's right to privacy.
As such, the grant of access by Judge San Gaspar-Gito did not require the consent of Judge Yu as the
writer.[256] To recall, the Court directed the MISO to retrieve the messages for purposes of these cases.
[257]
 Based on the certification issued by the authorized MISO personnel, [258] the messages were extracted
from the Yahoo and Facebook accounts of Judge San Gaspar-Gito with the use of her official
workstation. Hence, the exclusionary rule did not apply.

Judge Yu denied the imputed significance of the messages.

The denial lacked persuasion. In her October 3, 2009 message to Judge San Gaspar-Gito's Yahoo account,
Judge Yu apologized to Judge San Gaspar-Gito, and expressly clarified that Judge San Gaspar-Gito had

46
not sent the "meal stub." Judge Yu even requested Judge San Gaspar-Gito to "forget all [her] emails ...
since June ..."[259] This apologetic tone from Judge Yu rendered her denial of responsibility devoid of
substance.

Moreover, the barrage of messages, most of which were sent within the same day, makes us believe that
they had all come from Judge Yu. Although she insisted that Judge San Gaspar-Gito had sent the "meal
stub," Judge Yu did not offer any plausible explanation on the other messages containing sexual
innuendos.

It is notable that the Facebook and Yahoo messages started in August 2009 when Judge Yu was still a
public prosecutor. Nonetheless, she could still be disciplined for such acts committed prior to her
appointment to the Judiciary because her internet stalking of Judge San Gaspar-Gito continued after she
had herself become a MeTC Judge in Pasay City on January 12, 2010 and lasted until July 2010.

Our reading of the messages supports the studied conclusions by CA Justice Abdulwahid that they did
contain sexual insinuations that were ostensibly improper for a Judge to write and send to another. The
messages, however they may be read and understood, were at least vexatious and annoying. In any case,
the sender showed her deep-seated proclivities reflective of conduct unbecoming of a member of the
Judiciary.

Finally, the OCA submits that Judge Yu's use of the letterhead of her office or court in summoning to a
conference Atty. Reynaldo San Gaspar, the brother of Judge San Gaspar-Gito, constituted abuse of
power, and violated Section 8, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, thus:
Respondent Judge Yu's use of the letterhead of Branch 47, MeTC, to invite Atty. Reynaldo San Gaspar,
complainant Judge Gito's brother, to her court is no different from the aforecited cases. Respondent Judge
Yu's letter reads as follows:
Our court is inviting you for a brief conference in our court on August 5, 2011 around 1:00 p.m. to 4:00
p.m. or any available and convenient time and place for you, to clarify certain matters pertaining to the
two (2) letters both dated July 12, 2010 of your sister Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito. She can come
with you if she wants to.

Your cooperation is highly appreciated.

Thank you.
It is worthy to note that aside from appropriating the court's letterhead, respondent [J]udge Yu used the
words "our court" to invite Atty. San Gaspar for the purpose of clarifying matters relative to the ongoing
controversy between her and complainant Judge Gito. Even for an ordinary layman, receiving a letter
from the court would already create the impression that his presence in the said venue is compulsory.
Indeed, the letter to Atty. San Gaspar is a clear illustration of how respondent Judge Yu abuses her power
as a member of the bench so that others would give in to her wishes. She undoubtedly took advantage of
her position and used the same as a leverage against complainant Judge Gito who filed a case against her.
This is patently a violation of Section 8, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates
that judges shall not use the prestige of such office to advance their personal interests. [260]
The submission is well-founded.

In Ladignon v. Garong,[261] we discoursed on the liability of Judges for using their official letterhead to
advance their personal interests, thus:
x x x In Rosauro v. Kallos, we found the respondent Judge liable for violating Rule 2.03 of the Code of
the Judicial Conduct when he used his stationery for his correspondence on a private transaction with the
complainant and his counsel parties with a pending case in his court. The Court held:

47
By using his sala's stationery other than for official purposes, respondent Judge evidently used the
prestige of his office x x x in violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code.
We do not depart from this rule on the use of official stationary. We clarify, however, that the use of a
letterhead should not be considered independently of the surrounding circumstances of the use-the
underlying reason that marks the use with the element of "impropriety" or "appearance of impropriety". In
the present case, the respondent Judge crossed the line of propriety when he used his letterhead to
report a complaint involving an alleged violation of church rules and, possibly, of Philippine laws.
Coming from a judge with the letter addressed to a foreign reader, such report could indeed have
conveyed the impression of official recognition or notice of the reported violation.

The same problem that the use of letterhead poses, occurs in the use of the title of Judge or Justice
in the correspondence of a member of the Judiciary. While the use of the title is an official
designation as well as an honor that an incumbent has earned, a line still has to be drawn based on
the circumstances of the use of the appellation. While the title can be used for social and other
identification purposes, it cannot be used with the intent to use the prestige of his judicial office to
gainfully advance his personal, family or other pecuniary interests. Nor can the prestige of a judicial
office be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, or to convey or permit others to convey
the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. (Canon 2, Rule 2.03 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct) To do any of these is to cross into the prohibited field of impropriety. [262]
In the letter in question, Judge Yu used the phrase "our court" in issuing the invitation to Atty. San
Gaspar. She was obviously intending to use her authority as an incumbent Judge to advance her personal
interest. Such conduct was reprehensible because she thereby breached Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section
1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, viz.:
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE

xxxx

SECTION. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of
others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge.

CANON 4
PROPRIETY

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

xxxx
VII
The Penalties

In fine, the administrative offenses Judge Yu committed were the following, to wit:

1. In A.M. No. MTJ-12-1823, insubordination and gross misconduct for her non-compliance

with A.O. No. 19-2011;

2. In A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836 and A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815, gross insubordination for her

unwarranted refusal to honor the appointments of court personnel and rejection of the

48
 appointment of Ms. Lagman; disrespect toward the Court for her intemperate and disrespectful
language in characterizing Ms. Tejero-Lopez's valid appointment as void ab initio and a big joke;
and grave abuse of authority and oppression for issuing verbal threats of filing administrative,
civil and criminal charges against Ms. Tejero-Lopez unless the latter withdrew her application;

3. In OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ and OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ, grave abuse of authority and
abuse of court processes for issuing the show-cause order against her fellow Judges and court
personnel; and gross misconduct amounting to violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for
not disqualifying herself in acting on the supposedly contumacious conduct of her fellow Judges
and concerned court personnel in copying the records of her court;

4. In OCA IPI No. 12-2398-MTJ, refusal to perform official functions and oppression for

refusing to sign the application for leave of absence despite the employee having complied with
the requirements, and for doing so in retaliation for the employee's having joined as signatory of
administrative complaint filed against her;

5. Gross ignorance of the law for: (a) allowing on-the-job trainees and designating an OIC who did
not possess the minimum qualifications for the position and without approval from the Court
(OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ; (b) ordering the presentation of ex parte evidence before the OIC
despite his not being a member of the Bar (OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ); (c) allowing criminal
proceedings to be conducted without the actual participation of the public prosecutor (A.M. No.
MTJ-12-1815); and (d) authorizing the change of plea by the accused without the assistance of
counsel; and

6. In A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821, conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer for sending inappropriate

messages with sexual undertones to a fellow female Judge, and for using the official letterhead of
her judicial office in summoning a lawyer to a conference.

In view of the totality of the serious infractions committed by Judge Yu, the OCA recommended her
dismissal from the service with the following ratiocination, to wit:
In all the cases subject of this consolidated administrative matters, the totality of the infractions
committed by Judge Yu, i.e.. Gross Ignorance of the Law, Insubordination and Refusal to Perform
Official Functions, Gross Misconduct Amounting to Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Grave
Abuse of Authority, Oppression, and Conduct Unbecoming a Judge, underscores the fact that she is not fit
to occupy the position of a judge. She has done more than enough harm to the reputation of the judiciary
and the administration of justice, exacerbated by the oppression she has inflicted on her subordinates and
her utter disrespect for her superiors.

In similar instances, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to impose upon erring judges the ultimate penalty
of dismissal from service as they have indeed fallen short of the standards required of them as dispensers
of justice. These same standards must be required of respondent Judge Yu, failing which she must be
meted the penalty of dismissal from the service. [263]
The recommendation of the OCA is well-taken.

Judge Yu unquestionably committed several gross and serious administrative offenses ranging from gross
misconduct and gross ignorance[264] to the lesser offense of conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.
[265]
 Under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, either gross misconduct or gross ignorance of the
law is punished by either: (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from
reinstatement to any public office; or (2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
more than three months but not exceeding six months; or (3) fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00.[266] Under Section 46B, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in

49
the Civil Service, either oppression or gross insubordination - also considered grave offenses - is
punishable with suspension from office for a period ranging from six months and one day to one year for
the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. Under Section 11, Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer merits either: (1) fine of not less than
P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00; or (2) censure; or (3) reprimand; or (4) admonition with
warning.

The grossness and severity of her offenses taken together demonstrated Judge Yu's unfitness and
incompetence to further discharge the office and duties of a Judge. Her arrogance and insubordination in
challenging A.O. No. 19-2011, and her unyielding rejection of the appointments of court personnel
constituted gross insubordination and gross misconduct, and warranted her immediate dismissal from the
Judiciary. Her requiring her fellow Judges to submit to her authority by virtue of her showcause order,
whereby she revealed her utter disrespect towards and disdain for them, as well as her conduct
unbecoming of a judicial officer aggravated her liability. The administration of justice cannot be entrusted
to one like her who would readily ignore and disregard the laws and policies enacted by the Court to
guarantee justice and fairness for all.

VIII
Disbarment Cannot Be Meted
Without Due Process

The foregoing findings may already warrant Judge Yu's disbarment.

A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, dated September 17, 2002 and entitled Re: Automatic Conversion of Some
Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular
and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them
Both as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar,[267] relevantly states:
Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges of
regular and special courts; and court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise
grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of breaches of
conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.

In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered a disciplinary
action against the respondent Justice, judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar.
The respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint and show cause why he
should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned aa member of the
Bar. Judgment in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney may be disbarred on the ground of gross
misconduct and willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. Given her wanton
defiance of the Court's own directives, her open disrespect towards her fellow judges, her blatant abuse of
the powers appurtenant to her judicial office, and her penchant for threatening the defenseless with legal
actions to make them submit to her will, we should also be imposing the penalty of disbarment. The
object of disbarment is not so much to punish the attorney herself as it is to safeguard the administration
of justice, the courts and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court. Also, disbarment seeks
to remove from the Law Profession attorneys who have disregarded their I. awyer's Oath and thereby
proved themselves unfit to continue discharging the trust and respect given to them as members of the
Bar.[268]

The administrative charges against respondent Judge Yu based on grounds that were also grounds for
disciplinary actions against members of the Bar could easily be treated as justifiable disciplinary

50
initiatives against her as a member of the Bar. This treatment is explained by the fact that her membership
in the Bar was an integral aspect of her qualification for judgeship. Also, her moral and actual unfitness to
remain as a Judge, as found in these cases, reflected her indelible unfitness to remain as a member of the
Bar. At the very least, a Judge like her who disobeyed the basic rules of judicial conduct should not
remain as a member of the Bar because she had thereby also violated her Lawyer's Oath. [269]

Indeed, respondent Judge Yu's violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial conduct embodied in
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary would constitute a breach of the following
canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
CANON 6 THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance
his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts.
The Court does not take lightly the ramifications of Judge Yu's misbehavior and misconduct as a judicial
officer. By penalizing her with the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service, she should not anymore
be allowed to remain a member of the Law Profession.

However, this rule of fusing the dismissal of a Judge with disbarment does not in any way dispense with
or set aside the respondent's right to due process. As such, her disbarment as an offshoot of A.M. No. 02-
9-02-SC without requiring her to comment on the disbarment would be violative of her right to due
process. To accord due process to her, therefore, she should first be afforded the opportunity to defend her
professional standing as a lawyer before the Court would determine whether or not to disbar her.

IX
Final Word

The Court will not hesitate to impose the extreme penalty on any judicial officer who has fallen short of
the responsibilities of her worthy office. Any conduct that violates the norms of public accountability and
diminishes the faith of the people in the judicial system must be condemned. [270] No act or omission by a
Judge or Justice that falls short of the exacting norms of holding the public office of dispensing justice
can be condoned, for the most important thing for every Judge or Justice is to preserve the people's faith
and confidence in the Judiciary as well as in the individuals who dispense justice. The image of the
Judiciary must remain unsullied by the misconduct of its officials. The Court will not shirk from its duty
of removing from the Bench any Judge or Justice who has stained the integrity and dignity of the
Judiciary.[271] This is what must be done now in these consolidated cases.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES respondent JUDGE ELIZA B. YU

GUILTY of GROSS INSUBORDINATION; GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; GROSS
MISCONDUCT; GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY; OPPRESSION; and CONDUCT
UNBECOMING OF A JUDICIAL OFFICIAL; and, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSES her from the
service EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, with FORFEITURE OF ALL HER BENEFITS, except
accrued leave credits, and further DISQUALIFIES her from.reinstatement or appointment to any public

51
office or employment, including to one in any government-owned or government-controlled corporations.

Respondent JUDGE ELIZA B. YU is directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from notice
why she should not be disbarred for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics as outlined herein.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Court Administrator for its information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes,
Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., see Concurring & Dissenting Opinion.
Peralta, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., on official leave.
Leonen, J., I join Justice Brion.

52